LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData Internationalhandbookofbilingualismandbilingualeducation. Bibliography:p. Includesindex. 1.Bilingualism.2.Education,Bilingual. I.Paulston,ChristinaBratt,1932 P115.I581988404.287263 ISBN0313244847(lib.bdg.:alk.paper) BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataisavailable. Copyright1988byChristinaBrattPaulston Allrightsreserved.Noportionofthisbookmaybereproduced,byanyprocessortechnique, withouttheexpresswrittenconsentofthepublisher.

LibraryofCongressCatalogCardNumber:87263 ISBN:0313244847 Firstpublishedin1988 GreenwoodPress,Inc.88PostRoadWest,Westport,Connecticut06881 PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica

CONTENTS PREFACE ix 1. Bilingualism and Bilingual Education: An Introduction Christina BrattPaulston 1 2.Languages oftheWorld SarahGrey Thomason 17 3.The Language Situationin Arabic Speaking Nations AlaaElgibali 47 4. Bilingualism and Linguistic Separatism inBelgian Schools Elizabeth Sherman Swing 63 5. Bilingualism inBolivia XavierAlb 85 6.TheCeltic Languages inthe BritishIsles NancyC. Dorian 109 7.Language 141 inNative Educationin Canada

Barbara Burnaby 8.The Canadian Second Language Immersion Program FredGenesee163 9. Bilingualism and Bilingual Educationin thePeople's Republicof China JamesH.Y. Tai 185 v

10.Patterns of Bilingualism inEast Africa (Uganda, Kenya,and Tanzania) CarolMyers Scotton 203 11. Linguistic Minorities andthe Mother Tongue Debatein England Linguistic Minorities 225 Project 12.Societal Bilingualism and Bilingual Education: AStudyof the Indian Situation R.N. Srivastava 247 13. Language Planning and Language Acquisition: The"Great Leap"inthe Hebrew Revival MosheNahir 275 14.Creole 297 Englishand Educationin

Jamaica DennisR. Craig 15.Public Bilingual Educationin Mexico Nancy Modiano 313 16.Aspects of Bilingualism inMorocco Abdelli Bentahila 329 17. Bilingualism and Bilingual Educationin Nigeria Adebisi Afolayan 345 18. Bilingualism inParaguay Graziella Corvaln 359 19. Bilingualism inPeru Alberto Escobar 379 20. Bilingualism and Bilingual Educationin Singapore S. Gopinathan 391 405 21. Bilingualism and Bilingual Educationin aDivided

South African Society Douglas Young 22.Bilingual Educationin Soviet CentralAsia M.Mobin Shorish 429 23.Bilingual Educationin Spain Miguel Siguan 449 24. Bilingualism and Educationof Immigrant Children andAdults inSweden Kenneth Hyltenstam andLenore Arnberg 475 vi

25.Language Contactand Bilingualismin Switzerland GottfriedKolde 515 26.Bilingualismand BilingualEducation intheUnitedStates RichardRuiz 539 27.SomeAspectsof Bilingualismand BilingualEducation vii in Zaire LufuluaboMukeba 561 GLOSSARY 579 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 581 BIBLIOGRAPHY 583 AUTHORINDEX 585 LANGUAGE INDEX 595 SUBJECTINDEX 599 ABOUTTHE CONTRIBUTORS 601

PREFACE TheInternationalHandbookofBilingualismandBilingualEducationconsistsoftwentyseven chapters.Thefirstchapter,"BilingualismandBilingualEducation:AnIntroduction,"presentsa theoreticalframeworkofthecontextualsituationsoflanguagemaintenanceandshiftinwhichwe findbilingualismandbilingualeducation.Thesecondchapter,"LanguagesoftheWorld,"presents thebasicfactsaboutlanguagesandlanguagefamiliesintheworldandwheretheyarelocated.The chapterspellsouttherangeofpossibilitiesoflanguagesincontact. Theothertwentyfivechaptersarecasestudiesofbilingualism/multilingualismwithinnationstates, thenormaroundtheworldinspiteofthenineteenthcentury'sEuropeanmodelofonenationone language.(Intoday'sEurope,onlytwocountriesIcelandandPortugalaremonolingual.)Because someofthechapterscontainfairlytechnicalvocabularyfromlinguisticsandthesocialsciences,a glossaryhasbeenincluded.Thebookcloseswithsomesuggestionsforfurtherreading. Thecasestudychaptersarearrangedinalphabeticalorderandwereselectedtorepresentspecific situationsfromallcornersoftheworld.InEurope,Belgiumisatrilingualcountrywith considerabletension(andlegislation)accompanyingthelanguagecontactsituation.Incontrast, Switzerland,withitsfourofficiallanguages,presentsamuchmorepeacefulsituation.IntheUnited Kingdom,tothenorthandwest,wefindtheCelticlanguagesslowlydyingout,whiletheurban centersofEnglandfacetheuneasyeducationalproblemsofasecond(andthird)generationof immigrants.SocialistSwedenhasaneasiertimewithhereducationalpoliciesforimmigrant children.AndinpostFrancoSpainwefindareemergenceofminoritylanguages,withCatalanina strongpositionoflanguagemaintenancebeyondwhatonemighthaveexpected. ix

IntheAmericas,wehaveachapterontheAmericanIndiansituationinCanada(similartothatin theUnitedStatesandsonotduplicated)whichisbasicallyoneofassimilationandlanguagedeath orlanguagemaintenancethroughphysicalisolation.OwingprimarilytoCanadianlegislationvis vislanguage,wefindparentsresortingtoaveryunusualeducationalexperiment,nowestablishedas routine,theFrenchEnglishimmersionprograms.ThechapterontheUnitedStatesreveals,inter alia,thedifferentcourseofeducationalprogramsforchildrenofcolonizedgroupscomparedwith thoseoftheEuropeanimmigrants,whohavecompletelyassimilated. InLatinAmerica,thechaptersonMexico,Bolivia,andPerupresentanotherformofcolonization fromtheNorthAmerican,thatofcolonizationbymenwithoutwomen,andthesubsequentcourse ofmothertonguediversity,whichisbasicallyoneofslowshiftmotivatedbyeconomicnecessity.In contrast,ParaguaypresentsapictureofmaintenanceofGuaraniwithSpanishbilingualism,rooted inthefunctionaldistributionofthelanguages.Finally,intheCaribbean,Jamaicaisouronecase studyofacreolecontinuumanditseducationalproblems. TheArabicspeakingcountrieshavetheirowncharacteristics.Thechapteronthelinguisticsituation inArabicspeakingnationsistheonlychapterthatdescribesindetailthelinguisticfeaturesofa bilingualsituation.StableArabicdiglossiaisaverypoorlyunderstoodphenomenonandis frequentlygiventomisunderstandingandmisinformation.ThechapteronMoroccoprovidesacase studyofArabicdiglossiaandBerberbilingualism. China,India,andSovietCentralAsiaareexamplesofenormous,multilingualnationswith considerablelanguageproblems,whichhavebeensubmittedtoconsciouseffortsoflanguage planning.OnlyChinacanclaimtohavebeensuccessfulinitsplanningprograms.Singapore,a nationcity,isanothersuccessstorywithfourofficiallanguagesbut,unusually,withoutanystrife amonglinguisticethnicgroups. TheextremelymultilingualsubSaharaAfricaprovidesfourcasestudies.ThethreenationsofEast AfricaKenya,Tanzania,andUgandaandNigeriainwesternAfricaallhaveretainedtheex colonialEnglishasanationallanguage.OnlyTanzaniahasbeensuccessfulinimplementinga nativeAfricantongue,Kiswahili,asanationallanguageincommonusage.Zaire(withMorocco), ourexampleofaFrancophoneAfricanstate,showsasimilarpatterntothatoftheotherAfrican countries.ThechapterontheRepublicofSouthAfricashowshowtheeducationalpoliciesand languagebordersofethnicminoritygroupsareusedtoshoreupthetragicpolicyofapartheidinan officiallybilingualcountry. NocollectionofcasestudiesonbilingualismwouldbecompletewithoutachapteronIsrael.The successfulrevivalofHebrewisauniqueoccurrenceintheworld.Therehavebeenmanyattemptsat languagerevivals,Irish,forexample,buttheyhaveinvariablyfailed.Thehistoricalaccountofthe revivalofHebrewandthesocioculturalconditionsunderwhichittookplacemakethecaseofIsrael uniquelyinteresting,andthechapterprimarilyaddressesitselftotheproblemofexplainingthe successofHebrew. x

Eachchapterstandsaloneandcanbereadsimplyfortheinformationitcontains.Ifthechaptersare consideredtogether,however,trendsandgeneralizationsofsocietalbilingualismemerge,andthis handbookwithitscasestudieslendsitselfverywelltotheorytesting. ChristinaBrattPaulston xi

1 BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATION:ANINTRODUCTION ChristinaBrattPaulston Ethnicgroupsincontactwithinonestatecreatecertaincharacteristicproblems,oneofwhichis sociostructural.AsR.A.Schermerhornstates,"Theprobabilityisoverwhelmingthatwhentwo groupswithdifferentculturalhistoriesestablishcontactsthatareregularratherthanoccasionalor intermittent,oneofthetwogroupswilltypicallyassumedominanceovertheother"(1970:68). Elsewhereheobservesthatthenatureofthisdominanceisthemajorfactorinethnicrelations (1964).ThedominanceofapartheidinSouthAfricaisextreme,buttoalesserextentweseesimilar relationsinLatinAmerica.TheSwedishlaissezfairepolicyforimmigrantsrepresentstheother extremeoftolerantacceptanceineducationalpolicies.Typically,theethnicminoritygroupsare structurallysubordinatewithconcomitanteconomicdisadvantage.CataloniainSpainisverymuch anexception.Occasionally,languagebecomescoupledtoreligion,andthechaptersonIsraeland theArabspeakingnationsshowusthepowerofsuchacombination.Manybilingualnations recognizeonlythelanguageofthedominantethnicgroupastheofficiallanguage,butothernations recognizemorethanonenationallanguage.(ThesituationoftheUnitedStateswhichdoesnot legallyhaveanofficial,nationallanguageisunusual.)Officialbilingualismmaybepeacefulasin SingaporeandSwitzerland,oritmaybeaccompaniedbyoccasionalstrifeasinBelgiumand Canada.Thekeytounderstandingsuchrelationsisofteneconomic.Infact,thecentralquestionin understandingethnicrelationsconcernsthesocialconditionsthathinderorfostertheintegrationof ethnicgroupsintotheirenvironingsocieties(Schermerhorn,1970:14). Anothercharacteristicproblemofethnicgroupsincontactconcernslanguageandlanguage planning,especiallyineducationalpolicies.InherstudyoflanguagepolicyinMexico(1972),S.B. Heathmakesclearthatlanguagedecisionsarebasedprimarilyonpoliticalandeconomicgrounds andreflectthevalueof 1

thoseinpoliticalpower.Linguisticissuesperseareofminorconcern.Sincethemattersdiscussed areovertlythoseoflanguage,therefrequentlyisconfusionaboutthesalientissuesdiscussedin languageplanning,whethertheyaremattersofpolitical,economic,religious,sociocultural,or linguisticconcerns,orevenmoralconcerns.Thechaptersinthisbookdocumenttherangeof educationalpoliciesforminoritysocialgroupsandemphasizethelegitimateandimportant scholarlystudywhichthetopicmerits. Languagechoiceisoneofthemajorlanguageproblems,whetheritbechoiceofnationallanguage (asinIsrael),choiceofnationalalphabet(asinSomalia),orchoiceofmediumofinstruction(asin Sweden).InIsrael,socialconditionsandreligiousattitudestowardHebrewandthePromisedLand madepossibletherebirthofHebrewanditsimplementationasanationallanguage."Astothe successoftheHebrewrevival,itwasprobablyduelargelytotheprevalenceoftherequired conditions"(Nahir,1984:302);thatis,Israelservesasanexampleofsocialforcesfacilitating nationallanguageplanning.Incontrast,duringtheVelascogovernmentPeruofficializedQuechua asanationallanguage(Mannheim,1984)withresoundingfailureofimplementation.InPeru,asin muchofLatinAmerica,raceisdefinedprimarilybyculturalattributes:wearalongbraidandmany faldas(wideIndiantypeskirts)andspeakQuechuaandyouareanIndian;cutyourhair,wear EuropeanstyleclothingandspeakSpanish,andyoubecome,ifnotwhite,atleastmestizo(Patch, 1967).ToembraceQuechuawouldbetodeclareoneselfIndianwithalltheaccompanying socioeconomicstigmatization,andsuchplanningheldnohopeofsuccessfulimplementation.Peru servesasanexampleoflanguageplanningwhichgoescountertoexistingsocioculturalforces. Theproblem,ofcourse,istobeabletoidentifyrelevantsocialforcesandpredicttheiroutcomes. Forexample,contrarytoexpectation,choiceofmediumofinstructionintheschools,especiallyfor minoritygroups,hasverylittlepredictivepowerinthefinallanguagechoiceoftheethnicgroup. Thedifficultyisthatwehaveaverypoorgraspofwhattherelevantsocialforcesareandofwhat thecorrespondingeducational,social,andculturaloutcomeswillbe.Threepointsneedtobemade here.Themajorpointtounderstandaboutlanguageasgroupbehavioristhatlanguageisalmost neverthecausalfactorthatmakesthingshappen;rather,languagemirrorssocialconditionsand humanrelationships.Itisquitetruethatdenyingblacksaccesstoschoolingaswascommoninthe U.S.Southinthelastcenturymadethemunfitforanythingbutmenialjobs,butblackilliteracywas notthecauseofblack/whiterelationsandexploitation.Rather,itwastheresultofit,muchasisthe situationinSouthAfricatoday. Thecorollarytothissimple,yethardtograsp,pointisthatbilingualeducation(mothertongue education,homelanguageeducation,thatis,educationinboththenationallanguageandtheethnic group'sownlanguage)isinitselfnotacausalfactor.Schoolsandschoolingcanfacilitateexisting socialtrends,buttheycannotsuccessfullycountersocial,economic,andpoliticalforces.English 2

mediumschoolswerethemajorlanguagelearningfacilityforthechildrenoftheEuropean immigrantstotheUnitedStates,butthesameschoolshavenotbeensuccessfulinteachingEnglish toNavajochildrenonthereservationsandtheyhavehadtheirfairshareoffailureinChicano education.Onekeyquestionthatremainsis,Underwhatsocialconditionsdoesthemediumof instructionmakeadifferenceforschoolchildreninachievingsuccess? Thethirdpointrelatestothepossiblelinguisticoutcomesoftheprolongedcontactofethnicgroups withinonenation,thetypicalbackgroundsituationthatnecessitatesspecialeducationalpoliciesfor minoritygroups.Therearenotmanypossibilities:thethreemainonesarelanguagemaintenance, bilingualism,orlanguageshift.(Anotherpossibilityisthecreationofpidginsandcreolesaswesee inZairewithLingala.) Themajorpointtobemadehereisthat,inordertounderstandbilingualismandbilingualeducation, onemustconsiderwhetherthegeneralsituationisoneoflanguagemaintenanceorlanguageshift. Providedbothopportunityandincentivearepresent,thenormforethnicgroupsinprolonged contactwithinonenationisforthesubordinategrouptoshifttothelanguageofthedominant group,eitheroverseveralhundredyearsashappenedwithGaelicinGreatBritainoroveraspanof threegenerationsashasbeenthecaseoftheEuropeanimmigrantstoAustraliaandtheUnited Statesinanextraordinarilyrapidshift.Preciselythelanguageshiftandattemptstostopithave causedmuchofthetroubleinQuebec(fromFrenchtoEnglish)andinBelgium(fromFlemishto French). LANGUAGEMAINTENANCEANDLANGUAGESHIFT Tothestudyoflanguagemaintenanceandshift,weneedtoaddtwootherrelatedtopics:language spread(Cooper,1982)andlanguagedeath(Dorian,1981;DresslerandWodakLeodolter,1977).R. L.Cooperdefineslanguagespreadas"anincrease,overtime,intheproportionofacommunication networkthatadoptsagivenlanguageorlanguagevarietyforagivencommunicativefunction" (1982:6).Mostlanguagespreadprobablytakesplaceaslinguafrancas,asLWCs(languagesof widercommunication),andEnglishisagoodexample(Fishman,Cooper,andConrad,1977).On thewhole,suchspreadisneutralinattitudes. Butlanguagesalsospreadforpurposesofwithinnationcommunication,andwhentheydoso,not asanadditionallanguagelikeEnglishinNigeriabutasanewmothertongue,thenlanguagespread becomesacaseoflanguageshift.Whensuchlanguagespreadthroughshifttakesplacewithin groupsthatdonotpossessanotherterritorialbase,wehaveacaseoflanguagedeath.Languagesdo becomeextinct.ThemanydeadAmerindianlanguagesaremutewitnessestothespreadofEnglish( Bauman,1980),asisalsothecaseoftheCelticlanguages.Languageshift,especiallyifitinvolves languagedeath,tendstobeanemotionaltopic.Socialscientistswhoarenotbasicallyinterestedin languageandculturepersewillsimplyhavetoaccepttheideathatitisoftenfutileto 3

insistonareasonedviewinmattersoflanguageshiftwhereitconcernstheopinionsandattitudesof thespeakersoftheshiftinggroups.Linguistsandanthropologistsfrequentlybelongtothis category.Still,wecanmakesomegeneralizationsaboutlanguageshiftandmaintenancewhichseem toholdinallcases.Oneoftheprimaryfactorsinaccountingforthesubsequentcourseofmother tonguediversity,touseS.Lieberson'sphrase,liesintheoriginofthecontactsituation(Lieberson, Dalto,andJohnston,1975;Schermerhorn,1970).Voluntarymigration,especiallyofindividualsand families,resultsinthemostrapidshift,whereasannexationandcolonializationwhereuponentire groupsarebroughtintoanationwiththeirsocialinstitutionsofmarriageandkinship,religions,and otherbeliefandvaluesystemsstillmoreorlessintacttendtoresultinmuchslowerlanguageshift, ifatall.Themechanismoflanguageshiftisbilingualism,oftenbutnotnecessarilycombinedwith exogamy,whereparent(s)speak(s)theoriginallanguagewiththegrandparentsandthenew languagewiththechildren.Thecaseofbilingualismholdsinallcasesofgroupshifts,althoughthe rateofshiftmayvarywithseveralbilingualgenerationsratherthanjustone.Laymenandsocial scientistsalikeoftentreatlanguageshiftasanincontrovertibleindicatorofculturalassimilation,and itisoftenthepainfulthoughtofforesakingthecultureandvaluesoftheforefathersthatisatthe rootofthestrifeoverlanguageshift.Assimilationisamuchmorecomplexissuethanlanguage shift,butafewpointsneedtobeconsidered.First,weneedtomakeacarefuldistinction,in Schermerhorn'sterms(1970),betweensocialandculturalinstitutions.Economicincorporationof anethnicgroupwithaccesstothegoodsandservicesofanation(whichisthecommongoalof minoritygroupsandthemostcommonreasonforvoluntarymigration)isdifferentfromcultural assimilationandthegivingupofvaluesandbeliefs.Itisprimarilytotheperceptionofforced assimilationthattheissueofthemediumofinstructioninthenationallanguagebecomestied. ManyChicanos,forexample,bemoanthelossofChicanoculturewiththelossofSpanish.But thereisnotnecessarilyanisomorphicrelationshipbetweenlanguageandculture;Spanishisthe carrierofmanyotherculturesbesidesChicano,andasislesscommonlyaccepted,language maintenanceisnotnecessaryforculturalandethnicmaintenance,asindeedD.E.Lopez(1976) documentsfortheChicanosinLosAngeles.Inotherwords,groupscanmaintaintheirownethnic cultureevenafterlanguageshifttakesplace,asweseeingroupsliketheEnglishgypsiesandmany Amerindiantribes.Althoughmostethnicminoritygroupswithinanationdoshiftlanguage,they willvaryintheirdegreeofethnicmaintenanceandintheirrateofshift.Groupsalsovaryingroup adhesion,andthereiswideintragroupvariationinmembers'attitudestowardlanguagemaintenance andculturalassimilation.Whereshiftdoesnottakeplace,itisforthreemajorreasons: 1. Selfimposedboundarymaintenance(Barth,1969),alwaysforreasonsotherthanlanguage, mostfrequentlyreligion,forexample,theAmishandthe 4

orthodoxJewishHassidim.TheHassidimareperfectlyawareoftheroleofEnglish,buttheir choiceisgroupcohesionforreligiouspurposes. Many(Lubovitch)familieselecttosendtheirchildrentotheYiddishspeaking school[noEnglishcurriculum].Insodoing,theyincreasethepossibilityofupward mobilitywithintheethnicgroupanddecreasetheprobabilitythatthesechildren willgainthesecularandtechnicalskillsnecessaryforemploymentintheeconomy ofthelargersociety.AllLobovitchersareawareofthepotentialusefulnessof secularskillsandanEnglishcurriculum,butfew...familieselectthebilingual schoolfortheirchildren(Levy,1975:40). Suchextrememeasuresoflanguagemaintenanceareveryunusualandareneverundertaken overtimeonlyforthesakeoflanguageitself. 2. Externallyimposedboundaries,usuallyintheformofdeniedaccesstogoodsandservices, especiallyjobs.TheblackcommunityofthepastintheUnitedStatesisanexample. Geographicisolation(whichistheoreticallyuninterestingbutneverthelesseffective)isalsoa formofexternalboundarythatcontributestolanguagemaintenance,asGaelicintheHebrides orQuechuaintheAndes. 3. Adiglossiclikesituationinwhichthetwolanguagesexistinasituationoffunctional distributionwhereeachlanguagehasitsspecifiedpurposeanddomainandtheonelanguageis inappropriateintheothersituation,aswithGuaraniandSpanishinParaguayorwithModern StandardArabicandtheirmothertonguesinMorocco. Weseethenthatthemajorlinguisticconsequenceofethnicgroupsinprolongedcontactwithinone nationislanguageshiftofthesubordinategroupstothelanguageofthedominantgroup.Themajor dependentvariableistherateofshift.Butthisshiftonlytakesplaceifthegrouphastheopportunity andincentivetolearnthenationallanguage.Thereareprobablymanykindsofincentives(thedata basehereisveryinadequate),butthetwomajoronesare(1)economicadvantage,primarilyinthe formofsourceofincome,and(2)socialprestige.InL.Brudner'sterms(1972),jobsdetermine languagelearningstrategies,whichistosaywherevertherearejobsavailablethatdemand knowledgeofacertainlanguage,peoplewilllearnit.Withoutrewards,languagelearningisnot salient.Sometimeslanguageshiftisheldtobeproblematic(Quebec),sometimesitisencouraged asnationalpolicy(France),sometimesitisresistedbytheethnicgroups(Catalan),andsometimes itisencouraged(EuropeanimmigrantstoAustraliaandtheUnitedStates),butonemustinvariably looktothesocialconditionstounderstandtheattitudesandvaluesthataccompanylanguageshift. Anotherlesscommonresultoflanguagesincontactislanguagemaintenance,frequentlywith bilingualism,anditisalwaysforreasonsotherthanappreciationofthelanguageperse.Thethird consequenceisprolongedgroupbilingualism.ThisIntroductionisnottheplaceforathorough discussionofthelinguistic 5

natureofbilingualism(AlbertandObler,1978;Grosjean,1982;Hornby,1977;Lambert,1972),but itshouldbementionedthatfullfledged,balancedbilingualismistheexceptionratherthantherule. Bilingualismspansarangefrompassive,imperfectknowledgeofdeadsacredlanguages(Sanskrit, ClassicalArabic,ClassicalHebrew,Suryoyo,etc.)tothelinguisticcompetencenecessaryfor simultaneousinterpretation,(butevensoU.N.interpretersonlytranslateintoonelanguage,notback andforth).Degreeofproficiencyhaslittletodowithlanguageattitudes,andthesacredlanguages particularlyassertavastinfluenceonattemptstoorderlylanguageplanning(e.g.,choiceofnational languageinIndia).Whenwetalkaboutbilingualismandbilingualeducationasaneducational policy,weshouldthereforebecarefultoconsiderthedegreeandfunctionalpossibilitiesofthe linguisticcompetenceofthegroupdiscussed.Ihaveobserved"mothertongue"educationfor AssyrianchildreninSwedenwhocouldnotevencounttotenintheirmothertonguebutwerefluent inthenationallanguage.Inthesamecountry,IhaveseenclassesforTurkishprimarystudentswho knewverylittleSwedish.Thehighlyvariednatureofbilingualismforcesustofacetheproblemof whetherequityineducationwillallowthesameeducationalpoliciesforallethnicgroups.Indeed, theU.S.SupremeCourthassuggestedthatequaltreatmentdoesnotconstituteequalopportunityin thematterofeducationofethnicminoritychildrencomparedtomainstreamchildren.Onecan easilytakethatargumentastepfurtherandconsiderthatthevariousethnicgroupsmaymerit differentialtreatment. Whenimmigrantgroupsseethatlearningthenationallanguagewellandfluentlyisinthebest interestoftheirchildren(andsocialinstitutionsliketheschoolsandthechurchareavailabletohelp themdoso),veryfewproblemsareassociatedwiththeeducationalpoliciesforminoritygroups. WithinthesinglecitystateofSingaporewithitsfourofficiallanguagesandthreemajorreligions, thereisnosignofethnicstrifeoreducationalproblems.ManySingaporeansfavortheexcolonial Englishasamediumofinstruction.ThesimpleexplanationistobefoundinSingapore'sverystrong andexpandingeconomy.Thereisenoughofthegoodofthislifetogoaroundforeverybody,and competitiontakesplaceonthebasisofindividualqualities,notethniclines. Butwhenthesesameimmigrantgroupsencounterstigmatization,economicexploitation,and systematicunemploymentratherthansocioeconomicopportunity,theyarelikelytousetheoriginal mothertongueasastrategyformobilization.Languageboundarymaintenancereinforcedwith religionisanevenstrongertool.TheTurksinEuropehavefrequentlyfollowedthislatterprocess.It isnotthatmainstreammembersandthosefromassimilatedformerethnicgroupslikethePolesand SlovaksinPittsburghdon'tfacedifficultiesinadecliningeconomy;itisratherthattheydon'tfeela wetheyinjusticeandantagonismand(throughlanguageshift)theyhavelostlanguageasa mobilizationstrategy.InPittsburgh,theCityCouncilrecentlydecidedtomergethePoliceForceand theFireFighterunits.Bothgroupsperceivethisnewpolicyasbeingagainsttheirbestinterestsand areviolentlyopposedtoit.Asbothgroupsshare 6

thesameethnicmix,languageandethnicityarenotavailableresources.Instead,bothgroupshave mobilizedalongthelinesoftheirlaborunions.Hadethnicitybeenanavailableresource,theywould verylikelyhavemobilizedalongethniclines,tojudgefromD.ElazarandM.Friedman(1976)case studyofteachersinPhiladelphiawhodidjustthatandwhowereabletosuccessfullydefendtheir jobsinthatfashion. Almosttwentyyearsago,NathanGlazerasked:"JustwhyAmericaproducedwithoutlawsthat whichothercountries,desiringaculturallyunifiedpopulation,werenotabletoproducewithlaws isnotaneasyquestion"(1966:360).ThereisafablebyAesopwhichholdstheanswertothat questionandwhichbestillustratesthepointsraisedhere.Thesunandthewindseeamanwitha cloak(readlanguage)walkingalongtheroad.Theydecidetoenteracontesttoseewhocanfirst causehimtoshedhiscoat.Thewindtearsathimforhours,butthemanonlywrapshimselfmore tightlyinhiscloak.Thesuntakesoverandspreadsherbenevolenceovertheman,who,afterashort time,divestshimselfofhiscloak.Moral:Inhardtimes,peoplewillclingtotheirlanguageand ethnicgroup;intimesofplenty,theypaylittleattentiontoresourceslikeethniclanguages. EthnicityandNationalism Theprecedingdiscussionhasdealtexclusivelywiththecourseoflanguageandthelinguistic consequencesofethnicminoritygroupsinprolongedcontactwithinonenation.Butgroupscanfind anotherfocusofsocialmobilizationthanethnicity.IntherestofthisIntroduction,itisarguedthat therearefourdistincttypesofsocialmobilization,whichundercertainspecifiedsocialconditions resultindifferentlinguisticconsequences:ethnicity,ethnicmovements,ethnicnationalism,and 1 geographicnationalism. Pastscholarshiponlanguageandethnicgroupsoftenusedthetermnationalitysynonymouslywith ethnicgroup(Deutsch,1953).Thereismeritinreconsideringthephenomenaofethnicgroupsin contact,andinsteadofentwiningtheconceptsofethnicityandnationalism,wewouldhaveabetter understandingoflanguagemaintenanceandshiftifweweretodifferentiatethetwo.Fourtypesof socialmobilizationcomeclosetoformingacontinuumratherthanfourdistincttypes:(1)Ethnicity, whichcloselycorrespondstotheoldnotionofethnicity;(2)ethnicmovement,whichisbasedonthe conceptofthenewethnicity(Bennett,1975);(3)ethnicnationalism;and(4)geographic nationalismwhichcorrespondstoH.Kohn'sclosedandopennationalism(1968)aswellastoJ.A. Fishman'snationalismandnationism(1968). Ethnicity An"ethnicgroup"isareferencegroupinvokedbypeoplewhoshareacommonhistoricalstyle (whichmaybeonlyassumed),basedonovertfeaturesandvalues,andwho,through 7

theprocessofinteractionwithothers,identifythemselvesassharingthatstyle."Ethnicidentity"is thesumtotalofthegroupmembers'feelingsaboutthosevalues,symbols,andcommonhistories thatidentifythemasadistinctgroup."Ethnicity"issimplyethnicbasedaction(Royce, 1982:18).Ethnicitytendstostressrootsandasharedbiologicalpastandthecommonancestors (factualorfictional).Thebasisofpersonalidentityiscultural(includingreligion),andethnicityisa matterofselfascription.Culturalvaluesandbeliefs,whichareheldincommon,areunconsciously learnedbehavior,andethnicityisjusttakenforgranted.Thememberstendtofeelcomfortablewith pastandfuture,andnooppositionorviolenceisinvolved.Ethnicityinvolveslittlepowerstruggle andnotmuchpurpose,andsothecommoncourseisassimilationandconcomitantlanguageshift. Forexample,theWalloonswerebroughttoSwedeninthe1600stodeveloptheironindustryand havecompletelyassimilatedintoSwedishculture(Douhan,1982).Ethnicitywillnotmaintaina languageinamultilingualsetting,ifthedominantgroupallowsassimilation,andincentiveand opportunityofaccesstothesecondlanguage(L2)arepresent.Somegeneralsocialconditionsthat influenceaccesstotheL2are: 1. Participationinsocialinstitutions,primarilyuniversalschooling,exogamy,andrequired militaryservice,andoftenreligiousinstitutions. 2. Accesstothemassmedia,especiallytelevision. 3. Accesstoroadsandtransportationversusphysicalisolation,likeislandsandmountains. 4. Travel,includingtrade,commerce,war,andevangelism. 5. Someoccupations. 6. Demographicfactors,likesizeofgroups,vastinmigration,continuedmigration,back migration,andurbanization. Adiscussionofthesesocialconditionswouldtakeustoofarafield,andsoonlyafewcommentsare madehere. Exogamy,thatis,marryingoutsidetheethnicgrouporothersocialunit,obviouslynecessitates languageshiftforonepartner,atleastwithinthefamily.Thisshifttypicallyisinthedirectionofthe languageofthesocioeconomicallyfavoredgroup(Gal,1979).Exogamy,showingdefinitetrendsof direction,isthemostpositiveindicatorofincipientshift,andanimportantmechanismforlanguage shiftandassimilation. Thislisthasbeencollectedfromareadingofcasestudieswheretheseconditionsareoftentreated observationallyandanecdotally.Nodoubtsomeadditionscanbemade. 8

EthnicMovement Themajordifferencebetweenethnicityandethnicmovementdevelopswhenethnicityasan unconscioussourceofidentityturnsintoaconsciousstrategy,usuallyincompetitionforscarce resources.Anethnicmovementisethnicitythathasturnedmilitant,consistingofethnicdiscontents whoperceivetheworldasagainstthem,anadversitydrawnalongethnicboundaries.Although ethnicitystressesthecontentoftheculture,ethnicmovementswillbeconcernedwithboundary maintenance,inBarth'sterms,with"us"against"them."Itisverymuchaconscious,cognitive ethnicityinapowerstrugglewiththedominantgroupforsocialandeconomicadvantage,astruggle thatfrequentlyleadstoviolenceandsocialupheaval.Manyethnicmovementshavecharismatic leaders(probablyalwaysbornamemberoftheethnicgroup)likeStephenBikoinSouthAfricaand MartinLutherKing,buttheyneednothaveanintellectualeliteorasignificantmiddleclass. Movementsneedrallyingpoints,andlanguageisagoodobvioussymbolifitisavailable.(Itmay notbe.TheIrishRepublicanArmy,forexample,usesEnglish.)Soisreligion.Originalmother tonguesandsacredlanguagesarepowerfulsymbolsandmayservetosupportpeopleintheir struggleforwhattheyperceiveasabetterlife(thatlifemaybeafterdeath,asinJihad,HolyWar). Butnotethatlanguageasasymbolneednotbetheethnicgroup'smothertongue.BothStephen BikoandMartinLutherKingusedEnglishandpartiallyforthesamereasonthediversityof Africanlanguages.ThesymbolinBiko'scasewasthechoiceoflanguage,Englishratherthan Afrikaans;inKing'scase,thesymbollaywiththecharacteristicstyleofBlackEnglishrhetoric, manyofwhosefeaturesoriginatedwiththeWestAfricanlanguages. Whenanethnicmovementdrawsonreligionasaresourceforitsidentitybaseasstrategyinsocial competition,whencognitiveethnicityisjoinedwithreligiousfervor,thelikelyconsequenceisone oflanguagemaintenance,probablyofasacredlanguage(only).Sacredlanguagestendwithgreat diligencetobekeptunchanged.Theresultisthatsacredlanguagesareseldomspokenandexistonly inwrittenforms.Groupsthatmaintainasacredlanguage,theAssyrians,forinstance,willtypically shifttheireverydaylanguagetothatofthesurroundingcommunity.Hence,wefindallAssyrians maintainingSuryoyo(aformofAramaic)butspeakingArabic,Turkish,Swedish,orAmerican English.Maintainingtwoextralanguagesseemstoocumbersome. Thereareexceptions.PreIsraeliJewsmaintainedbothHebrewandYiddish,butasaresultof externallyimposedboundarymaintenanceandtheenvironingcommunity'srefusaltoletthem assimilate.Whenallowedtoassimilate,Yiddishdisappeared.ThatexplainswhyYiddishwas maintainedinSlavicEastEuropebutnotinGermany,thatis,asafactorofdegreeofsocial enclosure(Schermerhorn,1970).Thedropoutrateislikelytobehighforsuchreligiousgroupsif thehostcommunityallowsassimilation,asitisfortheAmishandasJ.W.BennettcitesfortheNew YorkHassidim.Ethnicmovementsbythemselves 9

probablycannotmaintainalanguagebutwillaffecttherateofshiftsothattheshiftismuchslower andspansmanymoregenerations. Nationalism Thereseemstobeasmanydefinitionsofnationalismastherearescholarsofnationalism,basically because,inBoydC.Shafer'swords(1972),nationalismhasmanyfaces.Shaferconcludesthatitis impossibletofitnationalismintoashortdefinition(1972:5).ButH.Kohnpointsoutthat,whileall instancesofnationalismwillvaryaccordingtopasthistoryandculture,aswellasthepresentsocial structureandgeographicallocation,allformsofnationalismstillsharecertaintraits(1968:64).R. W.Cottam'sinsistencethatnationalismnotbedealtwithasathingreifiedbutratherasa manifestationofnationalisticbehaviorisveryusefulhere.Heidentifiessomeofthesharedtraitsin hisdefinitionofanationalist"asanindividualwhoseeshimselfasamemberofapolitical community,anation,thatisentitledtoindependentstatehood,andiswillingtograntthat communityaprimaryandterminalloyalty"(Cottam,1964:3).Groupcohesiontotheend,agoal orientationofselfdetermination,aperceivedthreatofopposingforces,andaboveallaccesstoor hopeofterritoryarecharacteristicsofallnationalmovements.BothA.P.Royce'sandCottam's definitionsstressthatethnicityandnationalismaresetsorsyndromesofbehavior,perceptions,and attitudesofagroupofpeople.Givencertainsocialconditions,theywillbehaveincertain predictablefashions,includinglanguagebehaviorwhichisourpresentinterest. Ethnicandgeographicnationalismshareallofthesefeatures.Thegoalisindependence,theirown politicalstatus,andsocialinstitutionsontheirownterritory.Themostcommonidealisthenation state,butthereareothers.Catalunya,Quebec,andFlemishBelgiumarecontenttoremainpartofa largerstateaslongastheycansafeguardtheirownsocialandculturalinstitutions,ofwhich languagebecomesaveryprominentsymbol. Theimprovementofone'sownlotinlifeoratleastofone'schildren'sstatusisprobablyacommon goalofallnationalmovements.Themotivation,asinethnicmovements,isoneofperceivedself interest,aselfchosenstate.Veryoftennationalismtakesplaceasaprotestagainstoppression, againstacommonenemy,whetheritbeagainsta(dominant)groupwithinthesamestateoragainst anotherstate.Euskadi,theBasquenationwithinSpain,isanexampleofthefirsttype,andit introducesanotherproblemofinterpretation,theunanimityofdegreeofintensityofanational movement.TheBasquesrangefromterroristsandseparatiststoassimilistswithlanguageshiftmore commonthanadmitted.Thereistypicallyagreatemphasisonloyaltyandgroupcohesion,which areconsciouslytaughtbehaviors,taughtthroughsocialinstitutionslikeschool,church,andarmy, withtypicalsymbolsbeingtheflag,thenationalanthem,and,aboveall,thelanguage.Toadmitto languageshiftistobedisloyal,and 10

thisverydeepseatedfeelingofdisloyaltyisanadditionalprobleminelicitingvalidsurveydatain thistypeofresearch(Thompson,1974). Thegoalsofnationalmovements,besidesgeneralindependence,tendtobequitedefiniteand specific.Thesegoalsareoftenlegitimatizedbyorbasedonhistoricalpasteventsorconditions. DuringtheFinnishschoolstrikeinStockholmduringFebruaryof1984,whenFinnishparentskept theirchildrenoutofschoolinsupportoftheirdemandforFinnishmediumschoolingin kindergartenthroughuniversitylevelcourses,thereasongivenwasthatFinlandwasbilingualin SwedishFinnishandthatSwedenshouldreciprocate.Itisademandlegitimizedonthenationallaw oftheethnicimmigrantgroupanditspasthistory.Itismuchmorecharacteristicofnationalismthan ofethnicmovementswhichtendtobasetheirclaimsonarationaleofequitywithotherswithinthe nationstate. Anationalmovementmusthaveawelldevelopedmiddleclassinwhichconditionitdiffersfrom ethnicmovements.VictorAlba(1975)anecdoteoftheCatalanworkerswhoconsideredissuesof languageimmaterialisrepresentative."Wedon'tcareifweareexploitedinCastilianorCatalan," wastheirrejoinder,andtheyalignedthemselveswiththeworkers'unionsandtheSocialistparty ratherthanmobilizethemselvesalongnationallines.Withoutastakeinproperty,nationalismisnot perceivedtofurtherone'sselfinterest. Whenethnicdiscontentsturnseparatist,wegetethnicnationalism.A.P.Royceconsidersthe situationoftheBasques.TheETA,theBasquenationalorganization,isledbymembersofthe middleclass.ThelowerclassperceivednoadvantageinaBasquemovement,andtheconcernsand economicinterestsoftheeliteareprimarilystate/nationalandinternational.Theregionaleconomic interestsareincontrolofthemiddleclass,whofeeltheycarryanunfairshareofSpain'seconomic burdenandaregivennoadequatecompensation."Theimportantpointinthiscaseisthatthe impetusforethnicnationalismcamefromthesectorwhoseprivilegesandpowerdependedonthe economicwellbeingoftheBasqueprovinces.Basquenationalismwastheobviouswaytomaintain theirposition"(Royce,1982:104). Thecrucialdifferencebetweenethnicmovementandethnicnationalismisaccesstoterritory; withoutlandonecannottalkaboutBasquenationalism.Itisalsoaccesstoterritorythatgives viabilitytoaseparatistmovement. Ethnicnationalismandgeographicnationalismshareagreatmanyfeatures,astheprevious discussionmakesobvious.ThedifferencebetweenthemisthesameasthatwhichHansKohn outlinesfor"open"and"closed"nationalism(1968:66).Inethnicorclosednationalism,theethnic groupisisomorphicwiththenationstate.Theemphasisisonthenation'sautochthonouscharacter, onthecommonoriginandancestralroots.Inethnicnationalism,languagecanattainanimportance thatisfaroutofproportionofitscommunicativefunction.Thetypicalclaimisthatthedeep thoughtsandthesoulofthenationcanonlybeadequatelyexpressedinthecommonmothertongue. Hitler'sGermany,withitsemphasisonracialexclusivenessandrootednessintheancestralsoil,was themostextremeformofethnicnationalism.(Itisaninterestingobservationthat 11

theleadersofnationalmovementsneednotbeoriginalmembersofthatnation;Hitler,Stalin,and deGaulleandNapoleonbeforethemdidnothavetheiroriginalrootsinthestateofwhichthey becamenationalleaders.) Kohncalls"open"nationalismamoremodernform;itisterritoriallybased(hencegeographic nationalism)andfeaturesapoliticalsociety,constitutinganationoffellowcitizensregardlessof ethnicdescent.ThesocalledgreatimmigrationcountriesofCanada,Australia,andtheUnited Statesaregoodexamples.AsKohnobserves,theyrejectedthenotionofanationbasedona commonpast,acommonreligionoracommonculture.Instead,"[They]owetheirnationhoodtothe affirmationofthemoderntrendsofemancipation,assimilation,mobility,andindividualism" (1968:66). Inethnicnationalism,languageisaprimesymbolofthenation,butthatisnotnecessarilysowith geographicnationalism.Actually,theUnitedStatesdoesnotevenlegallyhaveanationallanguage. Canadahastwonationallanguages,butEnglishandFrencharenotthoughtofasnationalsymbols ofCanada.Rather,themaintenanceofacommonlanguagewasundertakenprimarilyforpragmatic LWC(languageofwidercommunication)purposes.Atthesametime,althoughonecannotchange one'sgenes,onecanlearnanewlanguage,andinanationthatdoesnotcareaboutgenesbutuses languagetodefineitsmembership,asdoesCatalunya,learningthenewlanguageobviouslyheld bothpracticalandsymbolicsignificance:knowingthenationallanguagebecamethehallmarkof membershipandingroupstatus.Thecombinationofvoluntarymigration,thesocialincentivesof ingroupmembership,andeasyaccesstothenewlanguagehastendedtoresultinveryrapid bilingualism,oftenwithconsequentshifttothenationallanguage. CONCLUSION Theuncertaintyoflanguageplanningineducationwillbereducedifweconsiderthesocialcontext oflanguageproblems,especiallythesocial,cultural,andeconomicforcesthatcontributeto languagemaintenanceandshift.Themosteleganteducationalpoliciesforminoritygroupsare doomedtofailureiftheygocountertoprevailingsocialforces,especiallytheeconomicsituation. Languageplanningeffortsaremostlikelytobesuccessfulwhentheyaresupportedbyeconomic advantageorsimilarsocialincentivesfortheminoritygroups. Atthesametime,weneedtoacknowledgeandrespectthefactthatthereareotherpointsofviewon languagemaintenanceandshiftthanthestrictlypragmaticaspectsarguedhere.Religiousgroups takelanguagemaintenanceseriouslywithoutanyimmediatelyobviousincentives,andsodoafew ethnicgroups.Actualtoleranceofreligiousdisparityvariesfromnationtonation,buttheprinciple ofreligiousfreedomiswellrecognizedinmostcountries.Simply,itisoneofrespectfortherightof agrouptoselfdetermination,toholdthevaluesandbeliefsasitschooses.Similarly,weshould holdthetruthselfevidentthatanethnicgrouphasarighttoitsownlanguageifitsochooses.The pointmadein 12

thischapter,thatethnicgroupsveryrarelyoptforcontinuedlanguagemaintenanceifthesocial conditionsfavorashifttothenationallanguage,isnocounterargumenttotheethicalprinciplethat minoritygroupshavearighttoculturalselfdetermination. NOTE 1. Partsofthischapterarebasedon"LinguisticConsequencesofEthnicityandNationalismin MultilingualSettings,"apaperpresentedattheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationand Development(OECD),Paris,1985. BIBLIOGRAPHY AlbaVictor.1975.Catalonia:AProfile.NewYork:PraegerPublishers. AlbertM.,andL.Obler.1978.TheBilingualBrain.NewYork:AcademicPress. BarthF.1969.EthnicGroupsandBoundaries.Boston:Little,BrownandCo. BaumanJ.J.1980.AGuidetoIssuesinIndianLanguageRetention.Washington,D.C.:Centerfor AppliedLinguistics. BennettJ.W.1975."AGuidetotheCollection."InTheNewEthnicity:Perspectivesfrom Ethnology,ed.J.W.Bennett.St.Paul:WestPublishingCo. BrudnerL.1972."TheMaintenanceofBilingualisminSouthernAustria."Ethnology11,1:3954. CooperR.L.,ed.1982."AFrameworkfortheStudyofLanguageSpread.".Arlington,Va.:Center forAppliedLinguistics,andBloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. CottamR.W.1964.NationalisminIran.Pittsburgh:UniversityofPittsburghPress. CreweW.,ed.1977.TheEnglishLanguageinSingapore.Singapore:EasternUniversitiesPress. DeutschK.W.1953.NationalismandSocialCommunication:AnInquiryintotheFoundationsof Nationality.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. DorianN.1981.LanguageDeath:TheLifeCycleofaScottishGaelicDialect.Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. DouhanB.1982."TheWalloonsinSweden."AmericanSwedishGenealogicalReview2:117. DresslerW.,andR.WodakLeodolter,eds.1977."LanguageDeath."InternationalJournalofthe SociologyofLanguage,No.12(SpecialIssue). ElazarD.,andM.Friedman.1976.MovingUp:EthnicSuccessioninAmerica.NewYork:Institute onPluralismandGroupIdentityoftheAmericanJewishCommittee. FishmanJ.A.1968."NationalityNationalismandNationNationism."InLanguageProblemsin DevelopingNations,eds.J.A.Fishman,C.A.Ferguson,andJ.DasGupta.NewYork:JohnWiley. .1977."LanguageMaintenance."HarvardEncyclopediaofAmericanEthnicGroups. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. FishmanJ.A.,R.Cooper,andA.Conrad,eds.1977.TheSpreadofEnglish.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. 13

GalS.1979.LanguageShift:SocialDeterminantsofLinguisticChangeinBilingualAustria.New York:AcademicPress. GlazerN.1966."TheProcessandProblemsofLanguageMaintenance:AnIntegrativeReview."In LanguageLoyaltyintheUnitedStates,ed.J.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton. GrosjeanF.1982.LifewithTwoLanguages:AnIntroductiontoBilingualism.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress. HeathS.B.1972.TellingTongues:LanguagePolicyinMexicoColonytoNation.NewYork: TeachersCollegePress. HornbyP.1977Bilingualism:Psychological,Social,andEducationalImplications.NewYork: AcademicPress. KohnH.1968."Nationalism."InternationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences11:6370. LambertW.E.1972.Language,Psychology,andCulture.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversity Press. LevyS.B.1975."ShiftingPatternsofEthnicIdentificationAmongtheHassidim."InTheNew Ethnicity:PerspectivesfromEthnology,ed.J.W.Bennett.St.Paul:WestPublishingCo. LiebersonS.,G.Dalto,andM.E.Johnston.1975."TheCourseofMotherTongueDiversityin Nations."AmericanJournalofSociology81,1:3461. LopezD.E.1976."TheSocialConsequencesofChicanoHome/SchoolBilingualism."Social Problems24,2:23446. MacDougallJ.A.,andC.S.Foon.1976."EnglishLanguageCompetenceandOccupational MobilityinSingapore."PacificAffairs49,2:294312. MannheimB.1984."Unanacinacorrolada:SouthernPeruvianQuechuaLanguagePlanningand PoliticsinHistoricalPerspective."LanguageinSociety13:291309. NahirM.1984."LanguagePlanningGoals:AClassification."LanguageProblemsandLanguage Planning8,3:294327. PainterM.1983."AymaraandSpanishinSouthernPeru:TheRelationshipofLanguageto EconomicClassandSocialIdentity."InBilingualism,ed.A.Miracle.Athens:Universityof GeorgiaPress. PatchR.W.1967."LaParada,Lima'sMarket.SerranoandCriollo,theConfusionofRacewith Class,"AVFSR,WestCoastSouthAmericaSeries,14,2(February):39. PaulstonC.B.1975."EthnicRelationsandBilingualEducation:AccountingforContradictory Data."InProceedingsoftheFirstInterAmericanConferenceonBilingualEducation,ed.R.Troike andN.Modiano.Arlington,Va.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics. .1977."LanguageandEthnicBoundaries."InPapersfromtheFirstNordicConferenceon Bilingualism,ed.T.SkutnabbKangas.Helsinki:HelsingforsUniversitet. RosierP.,andW.Holm.1980.TheRockPointExperience:ALongitudinalStudyofaNavajoSchool Program.Washington,D.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics. RoyceA.P.1982.EthnicIdentity:StrategiesofDiversity.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. SchermerhornR.A.1964."TowardsaGeneralTheoryofMinorityGroups."Phylon25:23846. 14

.1970.ComparativeEthnicRelations.NewYork:RandomHouse. ShabadG.,andR.Gunther.1982."Language,Nationalism,andPoliticalConflictinSpain." ComparativePolitics14,4:44377. ShaferBoydC.1972.FacesofNationalism.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich. .1976.Nationalism:ItsNatureandInterpreters.Washington,D.C.:AmericanHistorical Association. SnyderL.L.1976.VarietiesofNationalism:AComparativeStudy.Hinsdale,Ill.:DrydenPress. SpolskyB.,ed.1972.TheLanguageEducationofMinorityChildren.Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House. ThompsonR.M.1974."MexicanAmericanLanguageLoyaltyandtheValidityofthe1970 Census."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage2:618. TosiA.1984.ImmigrationandBilingualEducation:ACaseStudyofMovementofPopulation, LanguageChangeandEducationWithintheEEC.Oxford:PergamonPress. UNESCO.1984."MotherTongueandEducationalAttainment."Prospects14:1. VeltmanC.1983.LanguageShiftintheUnitedStates.TheHague:Mouton. VerdoodtA.1972."TheDifferentialImpactofImmigrantFrenchSpeakersonIndigenous GermanSpeakers:ACaseStudyintheLightofTwoTheories."InAdvancesintheSociologyof Language,ed.J.A.Fishman.PartII.TheHague:Mouton. WeinsteinB.1983.TheCivicTongue:PoliticalConsequencesofLanguageChoices.NewYork: Longmans. 15

2 LANGUAGESOFTHEWORLD SarahGreyThomason Theidealstartingpointforadiscussionoflanguagesoftheworldwouldbethefirsthuman language.Fromtherewecouldtracethediversificationprocessthatultimatelyproducedthe severalthousandlanguagesnowspoken.Unfortunately,thisorderlyhistoricalpathisnotopento us:hominidremainsseveralmillionyearsoldhavebeenfoundinAfrica,butlanguagesarenot fossilizedwiththebones.Linguistic"fossils"appearonlywiththeinventionofwritingaboutsix thousandyearsago.Historicallinguisticmethodologypermitsthepartialreconstructionof prehistoriclanguages,butthetimedepthachievedbythosemethodsisstillonlyaboutten thousandyearsatmost.Wecannotevenbecertainthatlanguageevolvedonlyonceinhuman history.Itispossiblethatearlyhumanpopulationsseparatelydevelopedlanguage,thoughinthat casewemightexpectgreaterorganizationaldifferencesamongwidelyseparatedlanguages,and moredifficultyinlearningadistantculture'slanguage.Atanyrate,thedirectlinguisticevidence datesfromaperiodwhentherewereatleastasmanylanguagesspokenastherearetoday. Giventhecontinuingspreadofthelanguagesofpoliticallyandeconomicallydominantgroupsat theexpenseofthelanguagesoflesspowerfulcultures,itissafetoassumethatthenumberof humanlanguagesisrapidlydecreasing.Suchadecreasecanbetraceddirectlyinthehistoriesof countriesliketheUnitedStatesandAustralia,wheremanylanguagesspokenatthetimeoffirst contactwithEuropeanshavevanished.Newlanguagesmaystillbeemerginginsomepartsofthe world,butcertainlynotataratethatmatchesthedismayingrateoflanguagedisappearance. Forthisreason,today'sguessatthetotalnumberoflanguagesmustdifferfromtomorrow's. Otherfactors,too,makeanysuchestimatetentative.Inparticular,someregionsoftheworld probablystillharborafewlanguagesundis 17

coveredbyoutsiders;andtwodifferentlanguagenamesmayinfactdesignatemerelyseparate dialects(oreventhesamedialect!)ofasinglelanguage.Itisthereforenotsurprisingthat linguists'guessesatthenumberoftheworld'slanguagesvarywidely,roughlyfromthree thousandtosixthousand.Thefirstfigureissurelytoolow.Thereareaboutathousandlanguages inAfricaaloneandanotherthousandintheNewGuineaarea(includingNewGuineaitselfand neighboringislands).OveronethousandAmericanIndianlanguagesareprobablystillspokenin theAmericas.Europehasonlyaboutfiftylivinglanguages,butAustraliamaystillhaveabout twohundred.HundredsoflanguagesarespokeninmainlandAsia,andseveralhundredmoreon theislandsofthePacificandneighboringseas. Sometimeinthelastfewmillionyears,thefirsthumanlanguage(orthefirstfew)evolvedand then,overtime,diversifiedintothousandsofdifferentlanguages.Theprocessesof diversificationthatproducetwoormoredaughterlanguagesfromasingleparentlanguageare wellunderstood,becausetheycanbemoreorlessdirectlytracedinrealtime.Thisispossiblefor thosefewgroupsinwhichanancientlanguagepreservedinwrittenrecordshassplitintoseveral daughters.ThebestdocumentedcaseisthatofLatin,whichgaverisetothemodernRomance languagesafterRomanpowerspreadoverWesternEuropeandpartsofEasternEurope.Chinese hasamuchgreatertimedepththantheRomancegroup,sincewrittenChinesedatesfromthe Shangdynasty(17661123?B.C.);butsinceChinesewritingitselfhaschangedrelativelylittle overthecenturies,theprocessesofchangeintothevariousmodernChinese"dialects"actually separatelanguages,judgedonacriterionofmutualintelligibilityarenotrepresentedinthe writingsystem.GreekhasanattestedhistoryintermediatebetweenthatofLatinandChinese,but inthiscasevirtuallynodiversificationhastakenplace:oftheseveralAncientGreekdialects, onlyAtticsurvives(exceptperhapsforaminorrelicofaDoricdialectinthePeloponnese),and Greekisstilljustonelanguage.Otherlanguagesaredocumentedfromaveryearlydatebuthave leftnolivingdescendants.Sumerianhasprideofplaceinthiscategory:itistheearliest documentedhumanlanguage,withwrittenrecordsfromasearlyasthefourthmillenniumB.C. ButSumeriandiedoutlongbeforetheturnofourera,and,indeed,isnotknowntoberelatedto anyotherlanguage.OtherancientMesopotamianlanguages,notablyAkkadian(withitsdialects AssyrianandBabylonian),datingfromthethirdmillenniumB.C.,andHittite,thelanguageofan empirethatflourishedfrom1700to1200B.C.,arerelatedtogroupswithlivingrepresentatives, butnotinadirectlineofdescentwithanymodernlanguages.ThesameistrueoftheNorth AfricanlanguageEgyptian:itisattestedfrom3200B.C.andisdistantlyrelatedtomodern SemiticandotherAfroAsiaticlanguages,butEgyptianitself(initsmodernformCoptic)had diedbytheendoftheseventeenthcenturyA.D. FromthedirectevidenceprovidedbytheRomancegroupandlanguagesthathavediversified intoseveralmoderndialects,andtheindirectevidenceprovidedbygroupswhosetimedepthcan betentativelydeterminedthrough 18

extralinguisticmeans,wecanmakeatleastaroughguessatthetimerequiredforasinglelanguage tosplitintotwoormoredaughterlanguages.Westartwithapremisewhoseempiricalfoundationis solid:alllivinglanguagesareconstantlychanging.Ifaspeechcommunitydividesintotwogroups thathavenofurthercontactwitheachother(forinstance,ifonegroupmovesfarawayfromthe originalhomeland),thetwoversionsoftheoriginalcommunity'slanguagewilldiverge,because languagechangeisnotdeterministicthatis,itisimpossibletomakespecific,detailedpredictions abouttheexactchangesthatagivenlinguisticsystemwillundergo.Afterfivehundredtoathousand years,thetwogroupswillbespeakingseparate,mutuallyunintelligiblelanguages.Theprocessof languagesplitmaybehastenedifthespeechofone(ormorethanone)groupisheavilyinfluenced bysomeforeignlanguage,anditmaybeslowedintheunlikelyeventthatneithergroupis influencedbyanyforeignlanguagecontact. Givenenoughtimeandappropriategeographicalspreadandisolation,thedaughterlanguages producedbylanguagesplitmaysplitagainandagain,untilanelaboratebranchingfamilytreehas sprungfromthesingleoriginallanguage.Mostfamilytreesthatlinguistsconstructhavean unattestedstartingpoint,calledaprotolanguage,whoseexistenceisinferredfromtheevidenceof certainkindsofsimilaritiesintheattesteddaughterlanguages.Familytreesarethushypotheses, andtheextenttowhichinterrelationshipswithinlanguagefamiliescanbeabsolutelydetermined continuestobeamuchdebatedissue.Thegreaterthetimedepthinaproposedlanguagefamily,the lessdetailedourhistoricalhypothesesare.Themethodsforestablishingbranchingfamily relationships,likethemethodsforreconstructingunattestedstagesinthehistoryofalanguage family,breakdownatabouttenthousandyears.Ifallhumanlanguagesarosefromasingleparent language,ourcurrentmethodswouldneverpermitustoprovethepoint,becausethetimedepths requiredtoproducealltheattestedhumanlanguagesareclearlyfargreaterthantenthousandyears. Thismeans,amongotherthings,thatwecanneverprovetwolanguagestobeunrelated;wecanonly notetheabsenceofevidencethattheyarerelated.Linguistsoftentalkaboutunrelatedlanguages,to besure,butsuchstatementsalwayscarrytheimplicithedge"asfarasweknow." Numbersoflanguagefamiliesareeventrickiertoestimatethannumbersofindividuallanguages, becauseinmostareasscholarsdisagreeaboutthefamilygroupingstheyconsideradequately demonstrated.Togivejustoneexample,somelinguistshaveclaimedjustsixlargelanguagefamilies amongAmericanIndianlanguagesnorthofMexico,whileothersalmosteveryonenowadaysare muchmorecautiousaboutacceptingfamily(orgenetic)groupings,estimatingaboutthirtyfiveto fortyfamilies.Probablythereareatleastahundredlanguagefamiliesintheworld.Afewofthe mostdiversefamilies,notablyAustronesianinthePacificandNigerKordofanianinAfrica,contain fivehundredtoathousandlanguageseach;IndoEuropean,withoverahundredlanguages,isstill amongthemostdiversefamilies.Mostlan 19

guagefamilieshaveonlyafewmemberlanguages,andscatteredabouttheworldareanumberof languageisolates,oronelanguage"families."ExamplesofisolatesareBurushaskiinIndia,Basque inEurope,andKutenaiinnorthwesternNorthAmerica,aswellastheextinctlanguageSumerian. Furtherresearchmaywellconsolidatesomesetsoflanguagefamiliesintosinglelargerfamilies; Kutenai,forinstance,isbelievedbysomelinguiststoberelatedtotheAlgonquianfamilyofCanada andthenorthernUnitedStates.Buttherewillnodoubtstillbemanyseparatelanguagefamilies evenafterallthemethodologicallyfeasibleconsolidatinghasbeendone. Surveysoftheworld'slanguagesaccordingtofamilygroupingscanbefoundinanumberof sources.Linguisticstextbooksoftenincludeachapteronthesubject,forexample,HenryA. Gleason(1961)andVictoriaFromkinandRobertRodman(1978).Moreambitiouslistsand classificationsarerarer.Thefirstauthoritativemodernlinguisticworkthataimedatcompleteness wasthatbyAntoineMeilletandMarcelCohen(1952,butoriginallypublishedearlier),which includestwentyonemaps,discussionsofclassifications,listsoflanguages,structuralsketches,and briefanalyzedtextsforoneormoreimportantlanguagesinmostgroups.Morerecently,thejournal AnthropologicalLinguistics(196466)publishedaseriesofissuesbyC.F.andF.M.Voegelin surveyingalltheworld'slanguages,withclassificationsandlists,and,occasionally,abitof structuralinformation.MerrittRuhlen(1975)differsinscopefrombothoftheearliersources,since thebulkofthevolumeistakenupwithsomesevenhundredrepresentativephonemeinventories. Butitalsoincludesfamilytreesanddescriptionsofmostoftheworld'slanguagefamilies,soitis usefulasareferencework.Thesethreepublicationsalsodifferinquality.MeilletandCohenis consistentlyofverygoodquality,butmanyofitsclassificationsarenowseriouslyoutofdate.The othertwovaryinqualityfromfamilytofamily,andthereaderisseldomwarnedthatsomefamily groupingsarehighlycontroversial(orevengenerallyrejectednowadays).Allthesesourcesmust thereforebeusedwithcaution.Readersinterestedinclassificationsforparticularareasshould consultthemorespecializedsurveysthatareavailableformanyfamiliesandmanyregionsofthe world;someofthesearelistedinthereferencetothischapter.Agoodsourceforgeneral informationistheEncyclopediaBritannica,whosemostrecenteditionhasanumberofgood articlesonmajorfamiliesandsomeminoronesaswell.ThevariousvolumesoftheCurrentTrends inLinguisticsseries,editedbyThomasA.Sebeok,havemorecomprehensivesurveysofmost families.HereIwilldiscusstheworld'smostfirmlyestablishedlanguagefamilies,concentratingon thosewiththemostmemberlanguagesandthemostspeakers.Thissurveywillthenserveas backgroundforadiscussionoftheworld'slanguagesinpoliticalterms,thatis,alookatthenational andinternationalstatusofparticularlanguages.Thegeographicallydesignatedsectionheadings belowarenotmeanttoimplyexclusivity:languagefamiliescan,andfrequentlydo,spillover continentalboundaries. 20

LANGUAGEFAMILIESCENTEREDINEUROPEANDNORTHERNASIA EvenbeforetheAgeofExploration,theIndoEuropeanfamilyhadoneofthegreatestgeographical rangesintheworld.Atthetimeoftheearliesthistoricalrecords,asthefamilynamesuggests,Indo European(IE)languagesspreadfromIndiatonorthwesternEurope.TheeasternmostIElanguage, Tocharian,haslongbeenextinctandisknownonlyfromdocumentsdiscoveredinChinese Turkestan(westernSinkiang).OfthetenIEbranches,sevenareattestedbefore500A.D.:Anatolian, anentirelyextinctbranchwhosemajorrepresentativewasHittite(AsiaMinor);Greek,attestedin theancientMyceneanformfromca.1400B.C.;IndoIranian,withIndicattestedinSanskrithymns fromabout800B.C.(andevenearlierIndicwordsinadocumentfrom1300B.C.),andIranianin thereligiouswritingsofZarathustra(whoisbelievedtohavebeenbornin637B.C.),writteninthe ancientlanguageAvestan;Italic,includingLatin,withinscriptionsbeginningabout600B.C.; Germanic,withtheoldestextensivetextsinthenowextinctlanguageGothicfromabout350A.D. andrunicinscriptionsinEarlyNorsefromthethirdcenturyA.D.;Celtic,withinscriptionsinthe continentallanguageGaulish,whichbecameextinctinabout500A.D.,andinOldIrishfromthe fourthorfifthcenturyA.D.;andArmenian(theUSSRandelsewhere),aonelanguagebranchfirst attestedinthefifthcenturyA.D. BesidesthesesevenearlyattestedIEbranches,therearethreemorerecentlydocumentedones.Of these,onlyBaltoSlavicdiversifiedintoanumberofmodernlanguages,thetwolivingBaltic languagesLithuanianandLatvianandtheseveralSlaviclanguages.Theothertwobranchescontain justonelanguageeach:AlbanianandTocharian.TheearlierattestedIEbranches,exceptfor Anatolian,haveleftoneormoremoderndescendants.IntheIndoIranianbranch,thereareover twentylivingIndiclanguages(mainlyinIndiaandPakistan)andaboutthirtyIranianones(Iran, Afghanistan,theUSSR);andthereareclosetotwentylanguages,forexample,Kashmiri,inDardic (northernIndiansubcontinent),thethirdsubbranchofIndoIranian.TheGermanic,Celtic,and Italicbrancheshaveseverallanguageseach(thelastcomprisesthemodernRomancelanguages). MostoftheIndiansubcontinentandalmostallofEuropearenowIEterritoryaswellasalmostthe entireWesternHemisphere,thankstoEuropeancolonizers. TwolanguageisolateshavebeenimportantinEuropeanhistory.TheseareBasque,whichisspoken inthePyreneesMountainsofSpainandFrance,andtheextinctlanguageEtruscan,whichwas spokeninwhatisnowItaly.Asidefromthesetwolanguages,onlyoneotherfamilybesidesIE occupiesasignificantportionofEurope:theUralicfamily,whosemostprominentmembersare Finnish,Hungarian,andEstonian.MostofthetwentyeightorsoUraliclanguagesarespokenin boththeEuropeanandtheAsianpartsoftheSovietUnion,and 21

thefamilynameisderivedfromitsproposedoriginalhomelandtheUralMountains.Thefamilyis dividedintothreemainbranches,FinnoPermic(e.g.,Finnish,Estonian,andLappish),Ugric(e.g., Hungarian),andSamoyed,asmallgrouplocatedinnorthcentralsubarcticSiberia. BetweenEuropeandAsia,intheCaucasusMountainsoftheUSSRandneighboringpartsofIran andTurkey,areanumberoflanguagestowhichtheumbrellatermCaucasianisgiven.Inspiteof theirgeographicalproximity,theselanguagesseemtobedividedintotwoquitedistinctgenetic groups:themorediverse(overthirtylanguages)NorthCaucasianfamilyandtheSouthCaucasian, orKartvelian,family(fourlanguages).ThemostimportantlanguageineitherfamilyistheSouth CaucasianlanguageGeorgian,whichhasbeenaliterarylanguagesincethefifthcenturyA.D. TheAltaicfamily,whosenamecomesfromtheAltaiMountainsofCentralAsia,stretchesfromthe bordersofEuropeacrossNorthernAsiatothePacificOcean.Itsmajorrepresentativesarefoundat theextremesofitsrange:theTurkiclanguage(Ottoman)Turkishisthewesternmostlanguageofthe familynowadays(thoughthecountryofBulgariaisnamedafteraTurkicpeoplenolongerthere whooncepenetratedintoEurope);andintheeast,many(perhapsmost)specialistsnowclassify bothKoreanandJapaneseasbranchesofAltaic.Mostoftheothertwentyormorelanguagesofthe TurkicbrancharespokenintheSovietUnion,butafewspilloverintoAfghanistan,Iran,Mongolia, andChina(Sinkiang).Theothertwobranchesofthefamily,bothinNorthernAsia,areMongol (ninelanguages)andTungus(seventeenlanguages).TungusistheleastimportantAltaicbranch now,butoneofitsmembers,Manchu,wasthelanguageoftherulersofChinafrom1644to1911. WiderrelationshipshavebeenproposedforAltaic,especiallywithUralic,butnoneoftheseis consideredwellestablishedbymosthistoricallinguists. InthefarnorthoftheSovietUnion,particularlyinnortheasternSiberia,areafewlanguagesthatdo notfitintoanyofthefamiliesdiscussedsofar.SiberianEskimobelongstothecircumpolarEskimo Aleutfamily.ItiscloselyrelatedtotheEskimolanguagesofAlaska,Canada,andGreenland,and moredistantlyrelatedtoAleut,whichisspokenontheislandchainbetweentheUSSRandAlaska. ThenthereisasetofeightlanguagesoftencalledPaleosiberianastrictlygeographicaldesignation indicatingthattheirspeakerswereinSiberiabeforeothers(Uralic,Altaic,andthenRussian speakers)arrivedinthearea.Severalofthesebelongtothesamefamily,Luoravetlan(or Chukotian);theseinclude,inparticular,Chukchi,whichwasalanguageofpoliticalandeconomic importanceintheregionbeforetheRussianscameinnumbers.TheremainingPaleosiberian languagesarenotknowntoberelatedtoeachotherortoanyotherlanguages,thoughhypotheses aboutpossiblegeneticgroupingsareoftenputforward.Amongthemostinterestinghypothesesare thosethatlinkoneormorePaleosiberianlanguages,especiallytheLuoravetlan,withIndian languagesofNorthAmericaorwithEskimoAleut.Someoftheresearchalongtheselines 22

lookspromising,butthetimedepthisgreat,andnoneofthecasesisgenerallyconsideredas provenatleastnotyet. LANGUAGEFAMILIESCENTEREDINAFRICA InWesternAsiaandNorthernAfrica,themostimportantlanguagefamilyisAfroAsiatic,whose fivefirmlyestablishedbranchesareSemitic,Egyptian,Berber,Chadic,andCushitic.Onlythe SemiticbranchisspokeninAsiaaswellasAfrica.Fivemembersofthisbranchhaveparticular historicalimportance.HebrewandAramaicarethelanguagesinwhichtheOldTestamentofthe Bibleiswritten,andAramaicwasthenativelanguageofJesus.Arabicwasthelanguageof MuhammadandoftheQur'an;startingintheseventhcenturyA.D.,itwasspreadwithIslamfrom ArabiaovermostofNorthAfricaandlargepartsofAsia.Akkadian,nowextinct,wastheearliest writtenSemiticlanguageandthemajorlinguafrancaoftheNearEastuntilitwasdisplacedby Aramaictowardtheturnofourera.Finally,Phoenician,withitsoffshootPunic,wasthelanguageof thegreatMediterraneanseapowerbasedinCarthage(modernTunisia)inNorthAfrica.Itwas probablythePhoeniciansfromwhomtheGreekslearnedtowrite,perhapsasearlyastheninth centuryB.C.Phoenician,likeAkkadian,islongdead. BesidesSemitic,AfroAsiatichasfourorfiveotherbranches.Egyptianformsaonelanguage branch,nowextinct.TheseverallanguagesoftheBerberbranch,forexample,TuaregandShilha, arespokenbyisolatedgroupsinnorthwesternAfrica;theywereoncewidespreadthroughoutthis region,butinrecentcenturiestheyhavesteadilylostgroundtoArabic.Chadiclanguagesarestill littleknown.Thereareprobablyoveronehundredlanguagesinthisbranch,clusteredinthevicinity ofLakeChadandspokenmainlyinNigeria,Chad,Cameroon,andtheCentralAfricanRepublic. ThebestknownChadiclanguagebyfarisHausa,whichisalinguafrancaofgreatimportancein largepartsofWestAfricaandistheofficiallanguageofNigeria'snorthernprovinces.TheCushitic branchissubdividedbysomespecialistsintoCushiticproperandanindependentsixthAfroAsiatic branch,Omotic.CushiticlanguagesarespokenontheAfricansideoftheRedSea,inSomalia, Ethiopia,Jibouti,theSudan,Kenya,andTanzania;themostimportantlanguagesinthisbranchare Somali(Somaliaandelsewhere)andGallaorOromo(Ethiopia). ThevastmajorityoftheterritoryinsubSaharanAfricaisoccupiedbytheNigerKordofanian family,whichcontainsnearlyninehundredlanguages.Althoughmanydetailsofthegenetic groupingsremaintentative,JosephH.Greenberg's1966classificationofNigerKordofanianinto KordofanianandsixbranchesofNigerCongoiswidelyaccepted.Allbutoneoftheseseven brancheshaverelativelymodestnumbersoflanguages.Kordofanian,withaboutthirtyonelanguages (e.g,KoalibandTegali),isspokenintheKordofanregionoftheSudan,southofKhartoum.Fourof thesixNigerCongobranchesareWest 23

African.ThetwentythreeorsoWestAtlanticlanguagesarespokenprimarilyinSenegal,Guinea, andSierraLeone;themostimportantlanguageinthisbranch,intermsofnumbersofspeakers,is Fula(Senegalandseveralothercountries).TheMandebranchisaboutthesamesizeandisnearby inWestAfrica.ItstwentysixlanguagesarespokeninSierraLeone,Liberia,IvoryCoast,Mali,and othercountries.TheyincludetheimportantlanguageknownvariouslyasMalinke,Mandinka, Bambara,andDyula,whichwasthelanguageofthegreatthirteenthcenturyMaliempire(Birdand Shopen,1979:59)andisnowspokeninseveralcountries.TheGurbranchislarger,withaboutfifty languages(e.g,DagombaandBariba)spokeninGhana,UpperVolta,Benin,IvoryCoast,and elsewhere.TheKwabranchhasaboutfiftylanguagesandincludesseveralofthemostimportant languagesofWestAfrica.ProbablythebestknownoftheseareYorubaandIgboinNigeriaand Akan(TwiFante)inGhana,eachwithseveralmillionsofspeakers.ThefifthNigerCongobranch, AdamawaEastern,containsabouteightylanguages(e.g.,NgbandiandGbeya)spokeninCentral Africa,fromeasternNigeriatothewesternSudan. TheremainingbranchofNigerCongoisthehugeBenueCongogroup,whichconsistsofnearlysix hundredBantulanguagesandabouteightynonBantulanguages.NonBantulanguagesbelongingto thisbrancharespokenasfarnorthandwestasNigeria(e.g.,TivandEfik);Bantulanguagesspread fromCamerooninthenorthwestandKenyainthenortheastallthewaysouthtosouthernSouth Africa.ThegreatEastAfricanlinguafrancaSwahiliisaBantulanguage;soarekikuyu(Kenya), Zulu(SouthAfrica),andkiKongo(theCongoandZaire). BesideAfroAsiaticandNigerKordofanian,theremainingtwolanguagefamiliesofAfricaNilo SaharanandKhoisanarerelativelyinsignificant,bothinnumbersoflanguagesandinnumbersof speakers.MostoftheeightyorsoNiloSaharanlanguagesarespokeninCentralandEastCentral Africa,buttwoofthemostimportantmembersofthisfamily,SonghaiandKanuri,arespoken fartherwest(Niger,Nigeria).Thelargestbranchofthefamily,ChariNile,withaboutsixty languages,includesseveralimportantlanguagesoftheSudan,forexampleDinkaandNubian,and alsoMaasaiinTanzania. Finally,thereareabouttwentylanguagesintheKhoisanfamily,whosenamederivesfromthe Hottentot'sselfname(Khoi)combinedwiththeirnamefortheBushmen(San).Mostofthese languages,includingHottentotitselfnowknownasKhoikhoiandtheBushman(San)languages, arespokeninSouthAfrica;theothertwomembersofthefamily,SandaweandHatsa,arespoken farthernorthinTanzania.TheKhoisanlanguagesareapparentlyremnantsofearlierpopulations whoselanguageswerelargelyabandonedforBantuastheBantuspeakersincreasedtheirterritory: evidenceofinfluenceofKhoisanonBantuisfoundinthepresenceofthemostfamousKhoisan structuralfeaturetheclickphonemesinseveralsouthernBantulanguages,notablyZuluand Xhosa. 24

LANGUAGEFAMILIESOFSOUTHERNANDEASTERNASIAANDOCEANIA ImmediatelytotheeastofAfrica(ifweignoreMadagascarforthemoment)areArabia,whichis solidlySemiticspeaking,andthenIran,whichislinguisticallydominatedbyIndoEuropean languagesoftheIraniansubbranch,especiallyPersian(Farsi).NeighboringPakistanismostly dividedbetweentheIEsubbranchesIndic(e.g.,Urdu)andIranian(e.g.,Balochi),butinIndia Indiclanguagescompeteforterritorywithlanguagesoftwootherfamilies,Dravidianand AustroAsiatic. LiketheIndicspeakers,butmuchearlier,thelinguisticancestorsofthemodernDravidians enteredtheIndiansubcontinentfromthenorthwest.SouthernIndiaisnowsolidlyDravidian speaking,whileIndiclanguagesdominateinthenorth.OnlyoneDravidianlanguageisspoken entirelyoutsideIndiaBrahui,inPakistan.ThereareaboutthirtyDravidianlanguagesinall,but asofthe1961census96percentofallDravidianspeakersspokeoneofthefourliterary languages:Tamil,Telugu,Kannada,andMalayalam.Variousproposalshavebeenmadeabout geneticlinksbetweenDravidianandotherlanguagefamilies,forexample,UralicandAltaic.The bestdevelopedhypothesisconnectsDravidianwiththeextinctlanguageElamite,anancient languageofwesternAsia(modernwesternIran)attestedasearlyasthethirdmillenniumB.C. TheAustroAsiaticfamilyisrepresentedincentralandeasternIndiabythesixteenorso languagesoftheMundabranch(e.g.,SantaliandMundari),butMundaspeakersarethoughtto haveenteredIndiafromtheeast;mostoftheotherAustroAsiaticlanguages,perhapsovera hundredofthem,arespokeninmainlandSoutheastAsia,theproposedoriginalhomelandofthe family.ProposedsubgroupingswithinAustroAsiaticvarysowidelythatnoconsensusseems clear(compare,forinstance,thedivergentclassificationsofPinnow,1963,Benedict[ascitedby Matisoff,1973],andRuhlen,1975:89).Munda,atleast,iswellestablishedasabranchofthe family.SoisthelargeMonKhmerbranch,whichincludesKhmer(Cambodian)ofKampuchea andmayalsoincludetheVietMuonggroup(e.g.,Vietnamese).Theinterrelationshipsofmanyof theotherlanguages,forexample,Nicobarese,thelanguageoftheNicobarIslandsintheBayof Bengal,arelesswellunderstood.Inanycase,mostAustroAsiaticlanguagesareclusteredin Vietnam,Kampuchea,andLaos,butothersarescatteredthroughThailand,Burma,Malaysia, andChina,aswellasIndia. TheenormousAustronesianfamily(sometimesalsoknownasMalayoPolynesian)alsohasa firmtoeholdinmainlandSoutheastAsia,thoughthevastmajorityofthethreehundredtofive hundredlanguagesinthefamilyarespokenonalmostalltheislandsinthePacific,fromHawaii allthewaywesttoMadagascarthusgivingthisfamilythelargestgeographicrangeofany languagefamilyintheworld,beforeEuropeanscolonizedtheAmericas.Onthemainland, AustronesianlanguagesarespokeninMalaysia(notablyMalay)andsouthern 25

Vietnam.ThegreatmajorityofAustronesianspeakersspeaklanguagesoftheIndonesian(or Western)branch,whichincludesMalay;IndonesianandotherlanguagesofIndonesia,forinstance, thoseonSumatra,Borneo,andSumatra;MalagasyonMadagascar;thelanguagesofthe Philippines,forexample,Tagalog,Visayan,andIlocano;andsomeofthenonChineselanguagesof Taiwan.(AtleastoneAustronesianlanguageofTaiwan,Atayal,maybelongtoathirdbranchofthe family,independentfrombothIndonesianandOceanic.)ThesecondlargebranchofAustronesian, Oceanic(orEastern),containsoverhalfofthelanguagesofthefamilybuthasfarfewerspeakers thanIndonesianlanguages.TheOceanicbranchisgenerallyfurthersubdividedintothreegroupsof languagesnamedaftergeographicallycontiguousgroupsofislands:Micronesia(e.g.,theMarianas, Marshalls,Carolines,andGilberts);Melanesia(e.g.,NewGuinea,NewBritain,NewIreland,the Solomons,VanuatuorNewHebrides),NewCaledonia,andFiji;andPolynesia(e.g.,Hawaii, Samoa,theMarquesas,theSocietyandCookIslands,Tonga,EasterIsland,andNewZealand). Thereisconsiderablecontroversyoverthevalidityofthesegroupingsasgeneticlinguisticsub branches,butthebroadoutlinesoftheclassificationareprobablyreasonablyaccurate.Notallthe languagesspokenineachareabelongtothearea'ssubbranch,butforthemostpartthegeography andthelinguisticclassificationmatchratherwell. TheMicronesiansubbranchisthesmallest;itslanguagesincludeMarshalleseandTrukese(or Truk).Melanesianisbyfarthelargestbranch,withwellovertwohundredlanguages.Alarge percentageofthesearespokenonNewGuinea,forexample,MotuandBuang,thoughAustronesian languagesareintheminoritythere.ThePolynesianbranchcontainsanumberoflanguageswhose namesarefamiliartooutsidersbecausetheislandsarefamous:examplesareHawaiian,Tahitian, Samoan,andTongan.Maori,spokenonNewZealand,isalsoPolynesian. NotallthelanguagesofOceaniaareAustronesian,however.Asmentionedabove,mostNewGuinea languagesperhapssixhundredofthemarenonAustronesian.Ingeneral,Austronesianlanguages arespokeninthecoastalareas,whilenonAustronesian(NANorPapuan)NewGuineanlanguages arespokenintheinterioroftheisland.ThegeneticaffiliationsoftheNANlanguagesaremuch disputed,partlybecauseveryfewofthelanguageshavebeenstudiedextensively.(Afewofthe betterknownlanguagesareEnga,Usurufa,andWahgi.)Somescholarsdividetheselanguagesinto fiveseparatefamilies,thelargestofwhichistheTransNewGuineagroup,withoverthreehundred languages.Inthisclassificatoryschema,besidesthesefivefamilies,aratherlargenumberof languagesremainunclassified.AttheotherextremeisJosephH.Greenberg's(1971)IndoPacific hypothesis,accordingtowhichalltheNANlanguagesofNewGuineaaregeneticallyrelatedtoeach otherandtosomeotherlanguagesaswellnamely,theindigenouslanguagesofTasmania,which havebeenextinctsinceabout1900;somelanguagesspokenontheAndamanIslands;andothers spokenonseveralislandsclosertoNewGuinea.Evensomeofthe 26

conservativegroupingsareconsideredhighlytentativebyvariousscholars,soitisnotsurprising thatmanyormostlinguistsareunwillingtoaccepttheIndoPacifichypothesisuntilandunlessmuch moreevidencecanbeadducedtosupportit. OnepointonwhichspecialistsdoagreeisthatthereisnoevidencethateithertheNANNew GuinealanguagesortheTasmanianlanguagesarerelatedtothelanguagesofAustraliaandthe westernTorresStraitIslands.Moreover,thereisquitegeneralagreementthat,withinAustraliaand thewesternTorresStraitIslands,allthelanguagesaregeneticallyrelated.Estimatesofthetotal numberoflanguagesspokeninthisareabeforeEuropeansarrivedrangefrom150to650(Yallop, 1982:27),butS.A.Wurm(1972)andColinYallop(1982)agreeonanestimateofaround250;of these,perhapsfiftyhavebecomeextinctsinceEuropeancolonizationbeganinthelateeighteenth century.Oftheroughlytwohundredextantlanguages,mosthaveonlyafewspeakerseach,andonly fivehaveoverathousandspeakers:theWesternDesertLanguage(3,0004,000),Warlpiri(ca. 2,500),Mabuyag(2,000+),Aranda(1,500+),andTiwi(ca.1,400)(Yallop,1982:44).Australian languageshavebeententativelysubdividedintotwentysevenbranches.Oneofthese,Pama Nyungan,occupiesthevastmajorityofthecontinent'sterritoryandcontainsbyfarthelargest numberoflanguages(ca.175),includingtheWesternDesertLanguage,Warlpiri,Mabuyag(spoken ontheTorresStraitIslands),andAranda.Theremainingtwentysixbranchesareclusteredtogether innorthcentralAustralia. ToreturntomainlandAsia,fromwhichtheramificationsofAustronesianledusintoOceania,we findtwomajorremaininggeneticgroups.ThelargerisSinoTibetan;thisisthesecondlargest languagefamilyintheworldintermsofspeakernumbers,afterIndoEuropean.Atleast,thisisthe standardclaim,butitmaynolongerbeaccurate:thetotalnumberofChinesespeakershasrecently beenestimatedat900million(LiandThompson,1979:295),andifthisiscorrect,thefamily's speakersmaynowoutnumberIndoEuropeanspeakers,evenwiththehugefiguresforEnglish(asa firstlanguage),HindiUrdu,Spanish,andotherwidelyspokenIElanguages.SinoTibetanisalso oneofthemostdiverseofallfamilies,thoughChineseisfarandawaythelargest,interritoryasin speakers. Classificationinthisfamily,asinsomanyothers,ishighlycontroversial,butChineseitselfis generallyconsideredtoformitsownbranch,Sinitic.Chineseisdividedintoseveraltraditional dialectsboundtogetherbytheirancientnationalunityandbytheircommonwritingsystem,which hasthelongestcontinuoushistoryofanywritingintheworld(fromtheShangdynasty,whichbegan in1766B.C.,untiltoday).Althoughnosinglecriterionoffersafoolproofwayofdistinguishing dialectsofonelanguagefromseparatelanguages,thelinguisticcriterionofmutualintelligibilityis mostoftenappealedto,anditgivesratherreliableresultsexceptwhenculturalfactorsinterfere. WithChinese,historyandsharedculture(includingthewritingsystem)dictatestatusasasingle language;butapplyingthecriterionofmutualintelligibilitywouldyieldatleastfiveseparate Chineselanguages.ThelargestbyfarisMandarin,thenativelanguageofover 27

halfoftheChinesepeopleandofmostoftheterritoryofChina.Theotherfourlanguagesare spokenineasternandsoutheasterncoastalChinaandonnearbyislands:Wu,includingthedialect ofShanghai;Min,includingthedialectofChaozhouonthemainlandandmostdialectsspokenon Taiwan;YueorCantonese,ontheSouthChinacoast,includingthedialectofHongKong;and HakkainsoutheasternChinaandTaiwan. TibetanandLoloBurmesehavetraditionallybeenclassifiedintoasinglebranchofSinoTibetan, calledTibetoBurman,butsomespecialistsnowsplittheseintotwoormorebranches.TheTibetan branchproperconsistsofonlytwoorthreelanguages,withmanydialects.Tibetanitselfhasalong traditionasaliterarylanguage,withClassicalTibetantextsdatingfromtheseventhcenturyA.D. andwritteninascriptderivedfromnorthIndianwriting.IntheLoloBurmesebranch,Burmeseis themajorlanguageandtheonlyonewithnationalandliterarystatus(itisattestedfromthetwelfth centuryA.D.).ItiscloselyrelatedtolanguagesoftheLologroup(China,Burma,Thailand,Laos, Vietnam),forexample,LahuandLisu. OvertwohundredSinoTibetanlanguagesarespokenintheeasternHimalayanregion,especially AssamineasternIndiaanddownintoBurma.ThesearesometimesgroupedintotheoneTibeto BurmanbranchandsometimessplitintoseveralbranchesindependentofTibetanandLolo Burmese.Fewofthelanguagesarewellstudied,soitisnotsurprisingthattheirdetailed interrelationshipsremainobscure.AmongtheeasternHimalayanlanguagesaretwocompletely differentgroupscalledNaga,onecomprisingseverallanguagesofBurmaandtheotherspokenin Sikkim,Nepal,Bhutan,andelsewhere.TheimportantBodogroup,includingBodoproperand Garo,iscenteredinAssamandiscloselyrelatedtothesecondgroupofNagalanguages(i.e.,those outsideBurma)andtoKachin(Jinghpaw)inBurma.OthergroupsareChinandKukiinBurma, closelyrelatedtotheNagalanguagesofBurma,andtheGyarungMishmigroupintheHimalayas (especiallyNepal,Assam,andTibet). Karen,whichconsistsofseverallanguagesspokenprimarilyintheIrrawaddydeltaofsouthern Burma,apparentlybelongseitherinaseparateSinoTibetanbranchorinabranchwithTibetanand LoloBurmeseasopposedtoSinitic.Finally,thefewMiaoYaolanguagesarespokeninsouthern China(especiallyGuizhouandHunan)andnearbynorthernVietnam,Laos,andThailand.The geneticaffiliationoftheselanguagesisstillcontroversial,buttheyarenowsometimesclassifiedas anindependentbranchofSinoTibetan. OneotherimportantgeneticgroupremainsinAsia.ThisistheTaiKadaigroup(sometimescalled KamTai),comprisingthirtytofiftylanguages,anditswidergeneticaffiliationsaresomuch disputedthatIwillgiveithereasanindependentfamily.Itwaslongclassifiedasasubbranchof SinoTibetan,butacounterproposaltogroupitwithAustronesianhasgainedgroundinrecent decades.Bothproposalshavebeenchallengedonmethodologicalgrounds.Probablymostscholars nowrejecttheSinoTibetanconnection;nevertheless,theAustronesianlinkisbynomeans generallyaccepted.ThebestknownTaiKadai 28

languagesareintheTaibranch,notablyThai(orSiamese)inThailandandLaoinLaos. AlthoughanumberoftheotherlanguagesarespokeninThailand,Laos,Vietnam,Kampuchea, andevenAssam(India),probablymostTaiKadailanguages,includingallfourmembersofthe Kadaibranch,arespokeninChina(Yunnan,Guizhou,Hunan,Guangxi,andHainanIsland). AfewsouthernAsianlanguageshavenotbeenclassifiedintoanyofthegeneticgroups mentionedabove.Someofthese,forexample,BurushaskiandKhasiinIndiaandAinuinJapan, aregeneticisolates,withnorelationshipsestablishedtoanyotherlanguages.Others,suchasthe small(ca.twelvelanguages)PalaungWafamilyofSoutheastAsia(Burma,Thailand,Laos, Vietnam,andChina),havenotbeengroupedwithanyoftheseverallargefamiliesintheir region. LANGUAGEFAMILIESOFNORTHAMERICANORTHOFMEXICO ThenativelanguagesoftheAmericashaveevolvedfromtheoneormorelanguagesspokenby hunterswhocrossedtoNorthAmericaonalandbridgeovertheBeringStrait,fromSiberiato Alaska.Thedatesoftheircrossingsarestilldisputed;landbridgesemergedthereseveraltimes duringthelasticeage.Archaeologicalevidencefromasearlyas10,000B.C.isabundant,and earlyhumansreachedTierradelFuegobyabout8,000B.C.(Driver,1969:34).Butrecent archaeologicalfindingssupportamuchearlierestimateddateofman'sarrivalintheNew Worldatleastasearlyasca.20,000B.C.(AdovasioandCarlisle,1984),andquitepossibly thousandsofyearsearlier. Asmentionedabove,viewsontheclassificationofAmericanIndianlanguageshavevariedfrom extremelybroadtoextremelyconservativenarrowgroupings.Thelattertypeiscurrentlyin fashion.AsMaryHaasobservednotlongago,today"thereisagreaterwillingnesstoleavesome thingsunassignedandtoadmitourinabilitytotieupalllooseends"(1976:32)or,atleast,to admitthatwehavenotyetgatheredsufficientevidencetojustifymanyofthegroupingsthat werepopularuntilrecently.Inthediscussionbelow,languagesarereferredtoasbeingwhere theywereatthetimeofthefirstEuropeancontact,ratherthanwheretheywere,orare,during thereservationperiod.ForthesoutheasternUnitedStatesinparticular,entireIndian communitieswereforcedtomovewestwardtoIndianTerritory(Oklahoma)asthenumberof whitesettlersincreased. InNorthAmerica,mostofthesixhugegeneticgroupsproposedbyEdwardSapir(1921)have beensplitandsplitagain.Onlyoneremainsintact:EskimoAleut,whichwasdiscussedabove. AnotherofSapir'sgroupshasbeenseparatedfromone,orperhapstwo,ofitsputativemembers. ThisisNaDene,consistingofAthabaskanEyak,awellestablishedgrouping;Tlingit(Alaska, BritishColumbia),whoserelationshiptoAthabaskanEyakisconsideredshakybymany(or most)specialists;andHaida 29

(BritishColumbia,Alaska),whosegeneticconnectionwiththeothertwoisnolongerviewedeven aspromising,muchlessasestablished.Tlingit,Haida,andEyak(Alaska)aresinglelanguages,but Athabaskanconsistsofaboutthirtylanguagesspokeninthreewidelyseparatedareas:Alaskaand Canada(e.g.,KutchinandChipewyan);connectedcoastalareasofOregonandCalifornia(e.g., Hupa);andtheApacheanlanguages,spokenprimarilyinArizonaandNewMexiconotably ApacheitselfandNavajo(Arizona),whoseapproximately120,000speakersmakeitthemost widelyspokenIndianlanguagenorthofMexico. NoneofSapir'sotherproposedgroupingsofNorthAmericanIndianlanguageshasremainedintact. Arecentconservativeclassificationintosixtytwogeneticunitsthatarewellsupportedbythe availableevidenceispresentedbyLyleCampbellandMarianneMithun(1979b),andthediscussion belowfollowstheiranalysis.Nooneargues,however,thattheclassificatoryworkinthisareais complete:futureresearchwillalmostsurelypermitustoreducethetotalnumberoffamilies. Amongthesixtytwofamiliesaretwentyeightisolates,forinstance,Haida,Kutenai,Tsimshian, Cayuse,Natches,Zuni,Yuchi,andTunica.Alltwentyeighthave,ofcourse,beenclaimedtobe relatedtootherlanguages(forexample,HaidatoNaDene,Kutenai(Montana,BritishColumbia)to Algonquian,Zuni(NewMexico)to"Penutian,"andYuchi(Tennessee,Kentucky,andelsewhere) toSiouan.Butnoneofthegroupingsiscurrentlyacceptedbyallspecialists,andforatleastsomeof theisolatesnewgroupingsarebeingproposed(e.g.,YuchiwithTunica). Therearealso,ofcourse,wellestablishedfamilies,thoughveryfewhavemorethantwenty languages.IntheNorthwest,immediatelytothesouthofnorthernAthabaskanterritory,thelargest familyisSalishan,withabouttwentythreelanguagesinWashington,Idaho,Montana,Oregon,and southernBritishColumbia.AmongtheSalishanlanguagesareBellaCoola,Tillamook,Shuswap, andKalispel.ThePacificNorthwestcoastoftheUnitedStatesandCanadaisanareaofgreat linguisticdiversity,sothecoastalSalishanlanguagesinparticularhavemanynonSalishan neighbors.AmongthesearethesixlanguagesoftheWakashanfamily,notablyKwakiutl(or Kwak'wala),onnorthernVancouverIslandandtheneighboringBritishColumbiacoast,and Nootka,onthewestcoastofVancouverIsland.JustsouthofWakashanterritory,intheOlympic PeninsulaofWashington,are(orwere)thetwolanguagesoftheChimakuanfamily:Quileute(with abouttenremainingspeakers)andChemakum(extinctsinceaboutfiftyyearsago). TwentyormorelanguagesspokentothenorthandtothesouthofSalishanandWakashanwere onceclassifiedintoagroupwhichSapircalledPenutian.Thisclassificationhasnowfallenapart completely,butcurrentresearchwillprobablyprovidesolidevidenceofrelationshipsamongsome (sub)groupsthatwereincludedin"Penutian"(Silverstein,1979).Amongthegeneticgroupsalready solidlyestablishedareChinookan,consistingoftwoormorelanguages 30

alongtheColumbiaRiver,Sahaptian,withtwoorthreelanguagesfartheruptheColumbia(e.g., NezPerce),KalapuyaTakelmainOregon,andCaliforniaPenutian,withaboutfivelanguages(e.g., Yokuts).AnimportantisolateoriginallyplacedinPenutianisTsimshian,withseveraldialectsor, perhaps,severalseparatelanguagesontheBritishColumbiacoast.Aproposedgeneticlinkof "Penutian"languagesofNorthAmericaandMayanandotherMesoamericangroupshasnotbeen widelyacceptedbyspecialistsinanyofthegroups.Littlesystematicevidencehaseverbeen presentedinsupportofthatambitioushypothesis(orinsupportofanalternativehypothesis connectingMayanwithHokan). MuchofCaliforniaandsmallareasinArizona,Texas,Mexico,andevenCentralAmericaare,or were,occupiedbythenumerouslanguagesofthecontroversialHokangroup.WilliamH.Jacobsen( 1979)mentionsthirteenbranchesofthefamily;elevenofthesearelocatedatleastpartlyin California,andsixoftheelevenarenowentirelyextinct.LyleCampbellandMarianneMithun (1979b)listtwentygeneticunits,buttheydonotclassifythemfurtherintoasingleestablished Hokanfamily.ManyofthethirteentotwentyunitsoftheproposedHokanfamilycontainonlyone language,butothershaveseverallanguageseach,forinstance,Pomoan,withsevenlanguages.As with"Penutian,"manyspecialistsnowprefertoabandontheHokanhypothesisentirely,startanew withmoremodestgenetichypotheses,andseewhetherthosewillinturnprovideevidenceforwider groupings.Examplesof"Hokan"languages,inanycase,areShastaandKarok(northern California),Washo(eastoftheSierras),Tequistlatec(Oaxaca,Mexico),andJicaque(Honduras). AmongtheneighborsoftheselanguagesistheimportantUtoAztecanfamily,withaboutthirty languagesinCalifornia,Nevada,Arizona,NewMexico,Texas,andMexico.Subgroupingwithin thisfamilyisstillamatterofsomedispute,butthefamilyitselfiswellestablishedasageneticunit. SeveralUtoAztecanlanguagesarenowextinct,andothersaremoribund.Butthefamilyincludesa numberoflanguageswhosenamesarelikelytobefamiliartooutsiders,forinstance,Shoshone, SouthernPaiute,Comanche,Luiseno,Hopi,Pima,Yaqui,Huichol,andNahuatl(orAztec).Thelast wasthelanguageofoneofthegreatpreConquestMesoamericancivilizations,andisstillspoken, invariousdialects,bywelloveramillionpeopleinMexico.ClassicalNahuatliswellattestedin numeroustextsdatingmainlyfromthesixteenthcentury.BeforetheSpanishConquest,theAztecs usedasymbolicsystemthathasbeencalled"rebuswriting,"butthiswasusedonlytonamepeople andplacesandwasessentiallypictorial,ratherthanatruewritingsystem(TerrenceKaufman, personalcommunication,1984).ThisleavestheMayans(seebelow)astheonlyNewWorldpeople whodevelopedagenuinewritingsystembeforecontactwithEuropeans. ThesmallKiowaTanoangroup,consistingofafewlanguagesspokeninOklahoma,Mexico,and elsewhere,hasoftenbeenlinkedwithUtoAztecan,butthisgroupingisnotuniversallyaccepted. InthecentralandeasternUnitedStates,andextendingnorthintoCanada,are 31

(orwere)languagesofthreefamiliesthatmayturnouttobedistantlyrelatedtoeachother:Siouan, Caddoan,andIroquoian.TheelevenSiouanlanguagesonceoccupiedmostoftheGreatPlains regionandafewareasinthesoutheasternUnitedStates.Thefoursoutheasternlanguagesare Catawba(NorthandSouthCarolina),whichisdistantlyrelatedtotherestofSiouan,andtheextinct languagesOfo,Biloxi,andTutelo.SiouanlanguagesoftheGreatPlainshavenamesfamiliarto outsiders,mostlybecausetheyhavebeenusedasAmericanplacenames:Dakota,withitsdialects Assiniboin,Dakhota(orYankton),andLakota(orTeton,orOglala);Mandan;Winnebago;Cinwere, includingIowaandtheextinctdialectMissouri;Dhegiha,whosedialectsincludeOmaha,Osage, andtheextinctKansa;Hidatsa;andCrow. ThefourorfiveCaddoanlanguagesare(orwere)alsoGreatPlainslanguages,spokeninsmallareas fromSouthDakotatotheGulfstates:Pawnee(Nebraska),withitsoffshootArikara;Wichita (Kansas,Oklahoma)andthenearbyKitsai;andCaddo(Louisiana,Arkansas,eastTexas). IroquoianlanguageswereoncespokenaroundandtothenortheastoftheeasternGreatLakes,and inaseparatedareainsouthernAppalachia.Thereisevidencefortheexistenceofperhapsfifteen Iroquoianlanguages,butmostofthese,forexample,HuronWyandot,Erie,andSusquehanna(or Andaste),havelongbeenextinct.Cherokee,theonlymemberofthesouthernbranchofIroquoian, hasthelargestnumberofspeakerstoday,abouteleventhousand(NorthCarolina,Oklahoma) (Mithun,1979).ThefamousCherokeeSequoyainventedasyllabicwritingsystemforthelanguage earlyinthenineteenthcentury,notlongbeforemostofhispeoplewereforcemarchedfrom AppalachiatoOklahoma.OfthenorthernIroquoianlanguages,themostfamousarethoseofthe FiveNations:Seneca,Cayuga,Onondaga,Oneida,andMohawk. WhenEuropeansfirstarrivedontheAtlanticcoastofNorthAmerica,thenorthernIroquoiswere almostsurroundedby(andinconflictwith)speakersoflanguagesbelongingtotheAlgonquian family.ThisfamilyisoneofthelargestinNorthAmerica,intermsofnumberoflanguages,number ofspeakers,andamountofterritory.ThetwentysixorsoknownAlgonquianlanguagesonce occupiedmostoftheAtlanticseaboardfromNorthCarolinatoNewfoundland(butnot NewfoundlandIsland),andextendedacrossCanadaandthenorthernUnitedStatesintotheGreat Plains.IntheWest,speakersoftheAlgonquianlanguagesCree(Saskatchewanandeastward), Blackfoot(Montana),andCheyenne(Wyoming,SouthDakota)areneighborsofSalishan, Athabaskan,andSiouanspeakers.ThemostwidelyspokenAlgonquianlanguagestodayareCree andOjibwa(Minnesota,NorthDakota,andelsewhere),butsomanyEasternandMidwesternplace namesderivefromthenamesofAlgonquiantribesthatthelanguagenamesarefamiliar:Delaware, Passamaquoddy,Connecticut(extinct),Narragansett(extinct),Menomini,IllinoisPeoriaMiami, Ottawa(thesamelanguageasOjibway),andFox(Wisconsin)areexamples.Otherfamiliarnames (forotherreasons)areShawnee(Tennessee),Kickapoo(Michigan,Illinois,andelsewhere), Potawatomi(Michigan),andtheextinctlanguagesMahican 32

(NewYorkandelsewhere)andPowhatan(Virginia).Mostofthewidergeneticgroupingsthathave beenproposedforAlgonquianhavegenerallybeenabandoned(atleasttemporarily),butone proposalisnowuniversallyregardedasfirmlyestablished:Algonquianhasbeenshowntobe distantlyrelatedtotwolanguagesofthenorthernCaliforniacoast,WiyotandYurok.Theentire familyisvariouslycalledAlgonquianRitwanorAlgic. OnlyoneothermajorfamilyisprimarilyaU.S.group.ThisisMuskogean,whosesixmember languagesoriginallyoccupiedmostofthesoutheasterncornerofthecountry.MostMuskogean speakerswereforcedtomovewestoftheMississippiRivertoIndianTerritoryin183640,but Seminole(adialectofCreek)isstillspokeninFloridaaswellasinOklahoma,andChoctawis spokeninMississippiandLouisianaaswellasOklahoma.OtherMuskogeanlanguagesare Chickasaw(actuallyadialectofChoctaw),AlabamaKoasati,Hitchiti,Mitasuki,andtheextinct languageApalachee. LANGUAGEFAMILIESOFMESOAMERICA SouthoftheU.S.borderistheratherwelldefinedlinguisticareacalledMesoamerica,which includesMexicoandCentralAmerica.Thelanguagesofseveralfamiliesarespokeninthisareaand shareanumberoflinguistictraits.TwoofthemostimportantfamiliesinMexico,UtoAztecanand Mayan,arerepresentedmoreextensivelyoutsideMexico,intheUnitedStatesandCentralAmerica, respectively.Athirdimportantfamily,Otomanguean(twentyfivetothirtyfivelanguages,or perhapsmore),islocatedentirelyinMexico,exceptfortheextinctlanguageMangue,whichwas spokeninCentralAmerica(coastalNicaragua,CostaRica,ElSalvador,andHonduras).Onebranch ofthefamily,includingOtomiandPame,isfoundnorthofMexicoCity.Theremaining OtomangueanlanguagesarespokeninChiapas(justoneextinctlanguage,Chiapanec),Puebla (centralMexico),Guerrero(PacificCoast),andOaxaca(southernMexico).Amongthemare Mixtec,Mazatec,Zapotec,Chatino,andAmuzgo. TwosmalllanguagefamiliesarealsofoundinMexico.TheseareTotonacan(Hidalgo,North Puebla,andVeracruz),withjusttwomembers,TotonacandTepehua;andMixeZoquean(southern Mexico),withabouteightmemberlanguages,notablyMixeandZoqueandtheiroffshoots.Bothof thesegroupsmayberelatedtoMayan(andthustoeachother),buttheclassificationisbynomeans universallyacceptedbyspecialistsinMesoamericanlanguages. ThethirtyorsolanguagesoftheMayanfamilyarespokeninMexico,Guatemala,Belize,and Honduras.Theirterritoryiscontinuous(includingtheentireYucatanPeninsula)exceptforHuastec, whichislocatedonandneartheGulfCoastinNorthernVeracruzandSanLuisPotosi,Mexico.Two partsoftheMayanareaareofparticularhistoricalimportance:manyinscriptionsanddocuments fromthegreatMayancivilizationhavebeenfoundinYucatan,whereYucatecorMayaproperis nowspoken,and(toalesserextent)inthePetenregionofGuatemala,wheretheIslandofItzain LakePetenwasthelastinde 33

pendentlowlandMayankingdom(finallyconqueredbytheSpanishin1697).Afteralongperiod ofdoubtandcontroversy,itisnowuniversallyacknowledgedthattheserecordsrepresentthe onlyfirmlyestablishedpreconquestwritingsystemintheNewWorld.(Mayanwritingisthe onlywellunderstoodwritingsystemintheworld,otherthanSumerian,thatisdefinitelyknown tobeanindependentdevelopment:alloftheworld'sotherwritingsystemsapparentlyderive,by imitationorbyadaptation,fromSumerian.)TheMayansystemisasyllabarywitheachsymbol representingawholesyllableratherthananalphabet,andithasmanylogographs(word symbols)aswell.Itmaybeasoldasca.100A.D.(butitsprecursorsgobacktoatleast300 B.C.).Manyofthesymbolshavealreadybeendeciphered,thoughmuchworkremainstobe done.ProbablybothCholanandYucatecanarerepresentedinthesewritingsthatis,the ancestorsofthemodernlanguagesChol,Chorti,andChontal,andYucatec(Maya),Lacandon, Mopan,andItza,respectively(TerrenceKaufman,personalcommunication,1984).Themodern MayanlanguagewiththemostspeakersisQuiche(Guatemala);otherswithseveralthousand speakerseachareYucatec(Mexico),Mam(Guatemala),Kekchi(Guatemala,Belize),and Cakchiquel(Guatemala).OtherimportantlanguagesinthefamilyareTzotzil,Tzeltal,Tojolabal, Chuj,andPocomchi. Mesoamericaalsocontainsanumberofisolatesandsmallfamilies,suchasHuave(Oaxaca, Mexico),Tarascan(Michoacan,Mexico),Xincan(withfourlanguages,inGuatemala),and Misumalpan,asmallfamily(includingMiskito)inHondurasandNicaragua. LANGUAGEFAMILIESOFSOUTHAMERICA ThehundredsofIndianlanguagesthatarespokeninSouthAmericaconstituteoneoftheleast studiedgroupsoflanguagesintheworld,thoughaconsiderablenumberofinvestigationsarein progress.Tentativegeneticclassificationsofthewholearearangefromthree(Greenberg's hypothesis,reflectedinRuhlen,1975)tothirtysevenfamilies,plusahundredisolates(Meillet andCohen,1952).Noteventhelatterclassificatoryschemaisfirmlyestablishedbycomparative evidence,sothebroadthreeunitschemaissofarquiteunsubstantiated.Thegeneticpicturein SouthAmericaissoverymurkythatnoattemptwillbemadeheretosurveyallthefamiliesin thisarea,ashasbeendoneforalltheotherregionsoftheworld(exceptNewGuinea).Instead, thissectionwillmentiononlyafewrepresentativefamiliesthatappeartobewellestablished. Ofthesefamilies,themostprominentistheproposedQuechumaranfamilyinBolivia,Peru,and Ecuador.Thisfamilycontainsthreebranches,Quechua(consistingofthreetofourlanguages) andAymaraand(probably)Jaqaru(Peru)togetherintheother.Evenwithsofewlanguages,the familyisofconsiderableimportance:notonlywasQuechuathelanguageoftheIncaEmpire,but QuechuaandAymaraarethemostwidelyspokenofallAmericanIndianlanguages: 34

Aymara(southernPeru,Bolivia)haswelloveramillionspeakers,andthevariousformsofQuechua (Peru,Ecuador,Bolivia)havetenmillion. ThenextmostimportantfamilyisTupiGuarani.Guarani(Paraguay,southwesternBrazil)isthe firstorsecondlanguageofmostofthepeopleofParaguay,nonIndiansaswellasIndianstheonly AmericanIndianlanguagespokenbysuchahighproportionofthepopulationofacountry.(Most ParaguayansalsospeakSpanish,thecountry'sofficiallanguage.)Thenumerouslanguages(about fifty)oftheTupibrancharespokeninBrazil,especiallyonthecoastandinthecentralinterior southoftheAmazonRiver. SizableportionsofnorthernSouthAmerica,especiallyColombiaandVenezuela,areoccupiedby thefiftyorsolanguagesoftheCaribanfamily.Thisgroupisnoteworthyforhavinggivenitsname totheCaribbeanSea;afewCaribspeakersstillliveintheLesserAntilles,butmostofthelanguages arespokenonlyonthemainland,forexample,MapoyoinVenezuelaandBacairiinBrazil. ThehundredorsoArawakanlanguagesareneighborsoftheCaribanlanguagesinthenorth,and theyextendsouththroughBrazilandBoliviatotheParaguayArgentinaborder.They,too,wereonce widelyspokenintheCaribbean.AmongthemainlandArawakanlanguagesareGuajiro(theGuajira PeninsulainColombiaandVenezuela),CampaandPiro(Peru),Baure(Bolivia),andTerena (Brazil). LanguagesoftheChibchanfamily(atleasttwentyfiveinall)arespokeninCentralAmerica (Honduras,Nicaragua,CostaRica,andPanama)aswellasinSouthAmerica(Colombia,Ecuador, andelsewhere).AmongthemareCunaandGuaymi(Panama)andCayapa(Ecuador). ThePanoanlanguages,forexample,CashiboandShipibo(orChama)inPeru,mayberelatedtothe TacananlanguagesofBolivia.FarthertothesoutharetheAraucanian(Mapuche)dialectsofChile andArgentina.Stillfarthertothesouthinfact,thesouthernmostlanguageintheworldis(orwas) Yamana,anisolate,attheextremesouthofTierradelFuego. ThebrevityofthissketchofSouthAmericanIndianlanguagesunderscoresthelackofconsensus on,andoftenevenpreliminaryguessesat,thegeneticgroupingsonthecontinent.Giventhe startlingnumberof"extinct"notationsinlanguagelistsfromSouthAmerica,muchcrucial informationhasalreadybeenlost,andmanyormostoftheremaininglanguagesarerapidly disappearing.Itmaywellbe,therefore,thattheinterrelationshipsamongtheselanguagescannever beestablishedasfirmlyasgeneticgroupsinotherpartsoftheworld. PIDGINANDCREOLELANGUAGES Theforegoingcontinentbycontinentsurveyoftheworld'slanguagesintermsofgeneticcategories leavesonesignificantgroupoflanguagesunmentioned.Thisgroupcomprisesallthecontact languagescalledpidginsandcreoleslanguagesthatdidnotarisebygradualchangefroman ancestorlanguage,butratherbyarelativelysuddenprocessinamultilingual(or,rarely,abilingual) settingwherenocommonsharedlanguagewasavailableforintergroupcom 35

munication.Inmanycontactsituations,ofcourse,onegroupsimplylearnstheother(oranother) group'slanguage.Butsometimes,especiallywhenmorethantwolanguagesarepresent,thisdoes notoccur,andanewlanguageapidginoracreoledevelops.Twokindsofcontactsituationsin particularhaveledtotheemergenceofpidginsandcreoles:tradesituations,whenforeigntraders visitamultilingualarea,andplantationsituations,whenlinguisticallydiversegroupsoflaborersare broughtin(asslavesorotherwise).Contactlanguagesthatarisethroughtradearelikelytobe pidginsthatis,languageswithnonativespeakersand,atleastatfirst,limitedvocabularyand morphosyntacticresources.Bydefinition,pidginsarespokenonlyassecond(orthird)languages. Contactlanguagesthatariseonplantationsmaydeveloprapidlyintocreoles;thatis,theymaybe spokenalmostimmediatelybychildrenastheirfirstlanguage(andthusactuallydevelopedpartlyby childrenlearningthenewlanguage).Thedifferenceisthatindigenouspeopleswhotradewith occasionalforeignvisitors,orwhooccasionallytraveltotradecenters,maymaintaintheirown nativelanguagesforintragroupcommunication;butplantationworkersfromanyonelanguage backgroundmaybetoofewtomaintaintheirnativelanguageevenasahomelanguage. Pidginandcreolelanguagesarefoundallovertheworld,butalmostallofthebestknownlanguages reflectthehistoryofEuropeantradeandcolonization:tradepidginsandcreolesclusteronthe coastsofAfrica,Asia,severalislandsinthePacific,andeasternNorthandSouthAmerica,while plantationcreolesarefoundintheCaribbean,coastalnorthernAustralia,andseveralPacificislands, includingHawaii.Themostfamousearlypidginwasthelinguafranca,whosevocabularyderived primarilyfromaRomancelanguage;itprobablyaroseintheNearEastatthetimeoftheCrusades, whichbeganin1095.ButtheearliestevidenceofanypidginisapidginizedformofArabic recordedbrieflyinanArabtraveler'saccountfromabout1050A.D.Later,Arabtradeand colonizationactivitiesledtofirmlyestablishedArabicvocabularypidgin/creolelanguages,for instance,JubaArabicinthesouthernSudan. TheCaribbeancreoles,suchasJamaicanCreole(Englishvocabulary)andHaitianCreole(French vocabulary),arethemoststudiedofallpidgin/creolelanguages.SeveralWestAfricanpidginsand creolesarealsowellknown,amongthemCapeVerdeCreole(Portuguesevocabulary),IvoryCoast PidginFrench,andCameroonPidginEnglish.Afrikaans(SouthAfrica)isvariouslyregardedasan offshootofDutchorasaDutchvocabularycreole;itsstatusisprobablybestdescribedassemi creole.FarthereastareMauritianCreole(Frenchvocabulary;ontheislandofMauritius),SriLanka CreolePortuguese,ChinaCoastPidginEnglish,andTayBoi,aFrenchvocabularypidginof Vietnamthatisnowextinct,ornearlyso.InthePacific,themostimportantpidgin/creolelanguage isTokPisin(orNeomelanesian),ahundredyearoldNewGuineapidginthatisnowcreolizing,that is,acquiringnativespeakers.Atleastthreelanguagesthataroseasplantationcreolesarestillspoken intheUnitedStates:Gullah 36

(Englishvocabulary)inSouthCarolina,LouisianaCreoleFrench,andHawaiianCreoleEnglish. Itisbynomeansthecase,however,thatallpidginsandcreoleshavevocabulariesderivedmainly fromthelanguagesofforeigntraders(EuropeanorArab).Atleastsometradelanguageswith nonEuropeanlexiconsaroseasaresultofEuropeantradeactivitiesandcolonization,butothers apparentlyarosewithoutevenaEuropeancatalyst,foruseamongnonEuropeanpeoplesbefore (aswellasafter)firstcontactwithEuropeans.Unfortunately,sinceinmostcasesthelanguages werenotrecordeduntilEuropeansdiscoveredthem,itisoftendifficulttotellwhetherornot suchalanguagepredatesEuropeancontact. AfricahasalargenumberofpidginsandcreoleswithnonEuropean(andnonArabic) vocabularies.ExamplesaresomevarietiesoftheBantulanguageSwahili,themajorlingua francaofEastAfrica,whichhasbeenpidginizedandcreolizedinmanypartsofitsterritory; Sango(CentralAfricanRepublicandelsewhere),whichisbasedlexicallyonNgbandi,aNiger CongolanguageoftheAdamawaEasternbranch;andFanagalo(usedintheSouthAfrican mines),whosevocabularyisderivedmainlyfromZulu,aBantulanguage.Anumberoflesser knownlanguagesarespokeninAsia,amongthemNagaPidgin(Assam;vocabularyfromthe IndiclanguageAssamese)andBazaarMalay,apidginizedformoftheAustronesianlanguage Malay(MalaysiaandIndonesia).InNewGuinea,besidesTokPisin,thereisapidgincalledHiri Motu(orPoliceMotu),whichisbasedlexicallyontheMelanesian(Austronesian)language Motu. IntheNewWorld,severalpidginswithNativeAmericanlexiconshavebeenrecorded.Themost prominentNorthAmericanpidginistheChinookJargonofthePacificNorthwest,witha polyglotvocabularyderivedfromChinook(Chinookan),Nootka(Wakashan),Salishan,and (latterly)EnglishandFrench.ChinookJargonisknownfromasearlyas1840(perhapsearlier), wasinuseamongIndiansforintertribalcommunication,andservedasthemajormediumof communicationbetweenwhitesandIndiansintheNorthwestthroughoutthesecondhalfofthe nineteenthcentury.TheDelawarevocabularyTraders'JargoninthenortheasternUnitedStates gavewaytoAmericanIndianPidginEnglish(andthentoEnglishitself)bytheendofthe seventeenthcentury,andMobilianJargon(GulfCoastandMississippiRiverValley),with Choctaw(Muskogean)vocabulary,hasrecentlybecomeextinct.PidginEskimoisalsoextinct.In SouthAmerica,theLinguaGeralofBrazil,withTupivocabulary,wasthemajorlinguafrancain thePortuguesecolonyuntilitwasgraduallyreplacedbyPortugueseintheeighteenthcentury, butwasstillusedaslateas1900inManaus(Brazil,ontheAmazon). Estimatesofthetotalnumberofpidginsandcreolesvary.Arecentcomprehensivelist (Hancock,1977)contains127entries,whichgivessomenotionofthesizeofthegroup. Pidginsandcreoleshaveoftenbeencalled"mixedlanguages"becauseoneresultoftheirorigin inmultilingualcontactisthattheirgrammaticalstructures 37

arenotderivedfromonesinglelanguage(thoughtheirvocabulariesusuallydocomefromonemain sourcelanguage).Thenotionofmixedlanguagesisacontroversialone,butmoreandmorescholars arebeginningtorecognizetheusefulnessofsuchacategoryinhistoricalstudiesoflanguage.This acceptancehasbeenencouragedbythediscoveryofasecondtypeofmixedlanguageoneinwhich thebasicvocabularycomesprimarilyfromonelanguage,butoneormoreentiregrammatical subsystemscomefromanotherlanguage.Sofaronlyafewlanguagesofthistypehavebeen adequatelydescribed.ThemajorexamplesareMa'a(alsocalledMbugu),aTanzanianlanguagewith muchinheritedCushiticbasicvocabularybutwithelaborateinflectionalstructuresborrowedfrom Bantu;Michif(NorthDakota),alanguagewhoseverblexicon,morphology,andsyntaxarederived fromtheAlgonquianlanguageCree,butwhosenounlexicon,morphology,and(mostly)syntax havebeenborrowedfromFrench;andMednyjAleut,spokenonMednyj(orCopper)Islandinthe BeringSea,whoseinflectionalverbmorphologyhasbeenborrowedfromRussian. OFFICIALLYRECOGNIZEDNATIONALANDINTERNATIONALLANGUAGES Readingthroughasurveyofthelanguagesoftheworldtendstohaveanumbingeffect:somany languagefamilies,somanymoreseparatelanguages,andsuchalargeproportionofbothwith namesfewreadershaveeverencounteredbefore.Ifwenarrowourfocustolanguageswithofficial statusornationalimportance,thepictureisconsiderablysimplifiedprimarilyasaresultofthe expansionisthistoriesofafewEuropeanandothercultures,mostnotablytheEnglish,theFrench, theSpanish,andtheArabs.Evenincountrieswherethesegroups'languagesdominate,indigenous languagesoftenenjoyprestigetoo.Nevertheless,theinternationalpoliticaldominanceofasmall numberoflanguagesisstrikinginviewofthegreatdiversityoflanguagesinmanypartsofthe world. Thediscussionbelowisbasedprimarily(thoughnotentirely)oninformationfromfoursources:the 1984editionoftheEuropaYearbook,the1981NationalGeographicatlas,andtwo1971"Language Files"listscompiledbytheCenterforAppliedLinguistics.Readersshouldkeepinmindthatthe statusofalanguagemaychangesuddenly,sothatevenrecentlypublishedinformationmaybeoutof date.Inparticular,formerEuropeancoloniesinAfrica,southernAsia,andOceaniaarelikelyto replace(orsupplement)aEuropeanofficiallanguagewithanindigenousone. Englishhasnoseriouscompetitionastheworld'smostprominentinternationallanguage.Atotalof fortysixoftheworld'snations,andfifteennonindependentpossessions,haveEnglishasanofficial nationallanguage,andintwoothersEnglishhassemiofficialstatus.Ofthefortysix,twentyeight countrieshaveonlytheoneofficiallanguage;intheothereighteennations,Englishsharesofficial statuswithatleastoneotherlanguage.Moreover,Englishisanofficial 38

languageinatleastonecountryoneverycontinent(except,ofcourse,Antarctica,whichhasno permanenthumanpopulation). EnglishisofficialinonlythreeEuropeancountries,noneofthemonthecontinentitself:theUnited Kingdom;Ireland,whereitsharesofficialstatuswithIrish(orGaelic),thoughthegreatmajorityof thepeoplespeakonlyEnglish;andMalta(officialstatussharedwithMaltese,anoffshootof Arabic).ItisnotofficialanywhereinnorthernorwesternAsia,butsixteenAfricannationsuse Englishofficially:Botswana,Cameroon(withFrench),theGambia,Ghana,Lesotho(withseSotho), Liberia,Malawi(withchiChewa),Mauritius(withFrench),Nigeria,SierraLeone,SouthAfrica (withAfrikaans),Swaziland(withsiSwati),Tanzania(withSwahili),Uganda,Zambia,and Zimbabwe.Inaddition,NamibiahasbothEnglishandAfrikaansasofficiallanguages,andEnglish issemiofficialinEthiopia,whereAmharicistheofficiallanguage. InsouthernAsia,Englishhasofficialstatusinthreecountries:India(withHindi),Sikkim,and Singapore(withMalay,Chinese,andTamil).EnglishissemiofficialinSriLanka(whereSinhalese isofficial)andistheofficiallanguageoftheBritishdependencyofHongKong. InOceania,EnglishistheofficiallanguageofAustraliaandNewZealand,ofanumberof dependentislands,andofthefollowingislandnations:Kiribati,PapuaNewGuinea(withTokPisin andHiriMotu),theSolomonIslands,Tonga,Tuvalu,Vanuatu(formerlytheNewHebrides;with FrenchandBislama),andWesternSamoa(withSamoan). Englishis,ofcourse,alsoprominentintheNewWorld.ItisofficialintheUnitedStates,though onlydefacto,andinCanada(withFrench),BelizeinCentralAmerica,GuyanaontheSouth Americanmainland,andintheCaribbeanislandnationsofAntiguaandBarbuda,Bahamas, Barbados,Dominica,Grenada,Jamaica,St.KittsandNevis,St.Lucia,St.Vincentandthe Grenadines,andTrinidadandTobago.ItisalsoofficialinBritishandU.S.dependenciesinthe Caribbean,forexample,PuertoRico(withSpanish). BesidesthecountriesinwhichEnglishhasofficialorsemiofficialnationalstatus,itiswidely spokeninanumberofothercountriesaswell,amongthemPanamaandEgypt. Frenchrankssecondamongtheworld'sofficialnationallanguages,withthirtyonecountries.Fiveof theseareinEurope:Franceitself,Belgium(withDutchandGerman),Luxembourg(withGerman andLetzeburgesch),Monaco,andSwitzerland(withGerman,Italian,andRomansch).Itissemi officialinAndorra,whereCatalanistheofficiallanguage.Mostoftheothercountriesinwhich FrenchisanofficiallanguageareinAfricatwentytwoinall:Benin,Burundi(withkiRundi), Cameroon(withEnglish),CentralAfricanRepublic,Chad,Comoros(withArabic),Congo, Djibouti(withArabic),Gabon,Guinea,IvoryCoast,Madagascar(withMalagasy),Mali, Mauritania(withArabic),Mauritius(withEnglish),Niger,Reunion,Ruanda(withkinyaRuanda [alsocalledkiRundi]),Senegal,Togo,UpperVolta,andZaire.Inaddition,Frenchhassemiofficial statusinAlgeria,Morocco,andTunisia.Elsewhere,Frenchisofficialonlyin 39

Canada(withEnglish),Haiti,andVanuatu(withEnglishandBislama)andinanumberofFrench dependencies,suchasFrenchGuianainSouthAmerica. ArabichasrecentlymovedpastSpanishintothirdplaceamonginternationallanguagesasmeasured bynationallanguagestatus,withtwentythreecountries(versustwentyforSpanish).Arabichas officialstatusintwelveAsiancountriesandtenAfricanones,aswellasontheMediterranean islandofMalta.TheAsiancountriesareBahrain,Iraq,Jordan,Kuwait,Lebanon,Oman,Qatar, SaudiArabia,Syria,theUnitedArabEmirates,andthetwoYemens;inAfricathereareAlgeria, Comoros(withFrench),Djibouti(withFrench),Egypt,Libya,Mauritania(withFrench),Morocco, Somalia(withSomali),theSudan,andTunisia.ItissemiofficialinIsraelandiswidelyspokenin thenonArabMuslimworld,forexample,ChadandNiger. SpanishisthesoleofficiallanguageofSpainandofsixteenLatinAmericannations:CostaRica, Cuba,theDominicanRepublic,ElSalvador,Guatemala,Honduras,Mexico,Nicaragua,Panama, Argentina,Chile,Colombia,Ecuador,Paraguay,Uruguay,andVenezuela.Ithasthesamestatusin EquatorialGuineainAfricaandsharesofficialstatusinBolivia(withQuechuaandAymara),Peru (withQuechua),andPuertoRico(withEnglish).Itiswidelyspokenelsewhereaswell,notablyin themainlandUnitedStatesonbothcoasts. PortugueseistheonlyofficiallanguageinPortugal,Brazil,andfiveAfricancountries:Angola, CapeVerde,GuineaBissau,Mozambique,andSaoTomeandPrincipe;itisalsoofficialina remainingAsianPortuguesepossession,Macau.GermanhasofficialstatusinsevenEuropean countries:Austria,Belgium,EastGermany,WestGermany,Luxembourg(withFrenchand Letzeburgesch),Liechtenstein,andSwitzerland(withthreeotherlanguages).OftheremainingIE languagesofEurope,onlyDutchhasnationallanguagestatusonanothercontinent,inSurinamein SouthAmericaaswellasintheNetherlandsandBelgium(withFrenchandGerman).Italian, finally,isanofficiallanguageinItaly,SanMarino,Switzerland(withotherlanguages),andthe Vatican(withLatin). TwentytwootherEuropeanlanguageshaveofficialnationalstatus,mostoftheminoneEuropean nation.Twoofthese,Finnish(Finland;withSwedish)andHungarian(Hungary),areUralic;the othersareallIndoEuropean.FourareGermaniclanguages:Danish(Denmark;alsoofficialin Greenland),Swedish(Swedenand,withFinnish,Finland),Icelandic(Iceland),andNorwegian (Norway).FourbelongtotheItalicbranch,Latin(VaticanCity)andthreeRomancelanguages: Romanian(Romania),Catalan(Andorra),andRomansch(Switzerland,withotherlanguages). EightSlaviclanguagesareofficialinfivecountries:Bulgarian(Bulgaria),CzechandSlovak (Czechoslovakia),Polish(Poland),Russian(USSR),andSerboCroatian,Slovenian,and Macedonian(Yugoslavia).TheremainingofficialIElanguagesofEuropeareAlbanian(Albania), Greek(Greeceand,withTurkish,Cyprus),andIrishorGaelic(Ireland,withEnglish).Besides thesenationallanguages,anumberofotherEuropeanlanguagesareatleastsemiofficialinpartsof Europeancountries,notablythosewiththeirown 40

SovietSocialistRepublicsinthelinguisticallydiverseUSSR:Lithuanian(Baltic;Lithuania), Latvian(Baltic:Latvia),Armenian(Armenia),theMoldavianvarietyofRomanian(Moldavia), Ukrainian(Slavic;theUkraine),Belorussian(Slavic;Belorussia),andthenonIElanguageEstonian (Uralic;Estonia).AnotherIElanguage,Tadzhik(avarietyoftheIranianlanguagePersian),alsohas itsownSovietSocialistRepublicwithintheSovietUnion. FourAltaiclanguageshavenationallanguagestatusinsixcountries:TurkishinTurkeyand(with Greek)inCyprus,Mongolian(specifically,KhalkhaMongol)inMongolia,JapaneseinJapan,and KoreaninbothNorthandSouthKorea.FiveotherAltaiclanguagesareofficiallanguagesintheir ownSovietSocialistRepublicsintheUSSR.AllofthesebelongtotheTurkicbranchofthefamily: Uzbek,Kazakh,Azerbaijan,Kirghiz,andTurkoman.AnumberofotherAltaiclanguages,and languagesofotherfamiliestoo,haveofficialstatusinAutonomousSovietSocialistRepublics(e.g., theMongolAltaiclanguageBuryatandtheUraliclanguageMordvin);oneotherSovietlanguage, theCaucasianlanguageGeorgian,istheofficiallanguageofitsownSSR. BesidesArabic,twootherSemiticlanguagesareofficialnationallanguages:HebrewinIsraeland AmharicinEthiopia.NonSemiticAfroAsiaticlanguagesarewidelyspokeninanumberof Africancountries,thoughusuallywithoutofficialstatus.ProminentamongthesearetheCushitic languageSomali,oneoftheofficiallanguagesofSomalia,andtheChadiclanguageHausa,amajor WestAfricanlinguafrancaspokenbysome14millionpeopleinNigeria,Niger,Togo,Ghana, Benin,andothercountries. FiveBantu(NigerCongo)languageshaveofficialstatusinsubSaharanAfricancountries.Swahili isnowtheofficiallanguageofKenya.Inothercountries,Bantulanguagesshareofficialstatuswith aEuropeanlanguage:seSothoinLesotho,chiChewainMalawi,siSwati(probablythesame languageasZulu)inSwaziland,andSwahiliinTanzaniaallsharingofficialstatuswithEnglish; andkinyaRuanda(orkiRundi)inRuanda,withFrench.Inaddition,Swahiliissemiofficialin Comoros,whereArabicandFrenchareofficial. SouthoftheSovietUnionandintheIndiansubcontinent,eightIndoIranianIElanguagesare officialnationallanguages.Onlytwoofthese,Farsi(aPersiandialect)inIranandPushtuandDari (anotherPersiandialect)inAfghanistan,areIranian;therestareIndic:Urdu(basicallythesame languageasHindi;Pakistan),Hindi(India;withEnglish),Bengali(Bangladesh),Nepali(Nepal), Sinhalese(SriLanka),andDivehi(theMaldives).InIndia,thevariousstateshavetheirown officialstatelanguages.MostoftheseareIndic,forinstance,AssameseandGujarati,butthefour southernstateshaveofficialDravidianlanguages(Tamil,Malayalam,Telugu,andKannada). SeverallanguagesofIndia,especiallyHindiUrduandTamil,arealsospokenbylargeemigrant groupsoutsideAsia,forexample,GuyanainSouthAmerica(whereEastIndiansconstitutehalfof thecountry'spopulation),MauritiusintheIndianOcean,SouthAfrica,andFijiinthePacific.Tamil evenhasofficialstatusinoneSoutheastAsiancountry,Singapore(withMalay,Chinese,and English). 41

InSoutheastAsia,theAustroAsiaticlanguagesKhmer(Cambodian)andVietnamesearethe officialnationallanguagesofKampucheaandVietnam,respectively.Vietnameseiswidelyspoken byemigrantgroupsaswell,notablyintheUnitedStates.LaosandThailandhaveastheirnational languagestheTai(ofTaiKadai)languagesLaoandThai,respectively.Countrieswithofficial AustronesianlanguagesarelocatedbothontheAsianmainlandandonislandsoffthecoastofAsia andelsewhere:Malay(Malaysiaand,withotherlanguages,Singapore),Indonesian(Indonesia), TagalogorPilipino(Philippines),andMalagasy(Madagascar;withFrench),Fijian(Fiji),Samoan (WesternSamoa;withEnglish),IKiribati(orGilbertese;Kiribati),Nauruan(Nauru),and Tuvaluan(Tuvalu). SinoTibetanlanguages,foralloftheirdiversityandvastnumbersofspeakers,haveofficialnational statusinonlyfourcountries:ChineseinChina,Taiwan,and(withthreeotherlanguages)Singapore; andBurmeseinBurma.ChineseissemiofficialintheBritishcolonyofHongKongandinthe PortuguesepossessionMacau.Inaddition,largeemigrantChinesepopulations,speakingvarious "dialects"ofChinese,arefoundinmanycountries,especiallytheUnitedStates,Indonesia,and Mauritius. OnlytwoAmericanIndianlanguageshaveofficialnationallanguagestatus:inBolivia,Quechua andAymarasharethisstatuswithSpanish,andinPerutheofficiallanguagesareSpanishand Quechua.Guarani(Paraguay)shouldbementionedheretoo,sinceitistheonlyIndianlanguage spokenbythemajorityofthepeopleinitscountry.GreenlandicEskimo,thoughnot(strictly speaking)anAmericanIndianlanguage,isalsorelevanthere,asithasofficialstatus(withDanish) inGreenland. Severalpidginsandcreoleshaveatleastsemiofficialstatus.Afrikaans,whichmaybeasemi creole,isoneofSouthAfrica'stwoofficiallanguages.SangoisthenationallanguageoftheCentral AfricanRepublic(thoughFrenchisthecountry'sofficiallanguage).TheformsofSwahilithatare officialinKenyaandsemiofficialinComorosmaybecreolized(thoughmostpeopleclassifymost versionsofSwahiliasordinaryBantu).TheFrenchbasedCreolehasrecentlyreplacedFrenchand EnglishastheofficiallanguageoftheSeychelles.TheEnglishvocabularypidginBislamaisthe constitutionallyestablishednationallanguageofVanuatu(formerlytheNewHebrides)andshares officialstatuswithFrenchandEnglish.InPapuaNewGuinea,theEnglishvocabularypidginTok Pisinhasrecentlygainedofficialstatus,andasecondNewGuineapidgin,HiriMotu,hasthesame status;Englishisthecountry'sthirdofficiallanguage.InanumberofCaribbeancountries,notably Haiti,theofficiallanguageisaEuropeanone,butmostofthepeoplespeakthelocalcreolenatively. CONCLUSIONS Bothofthesurveysinthischapterlanguagesoftheworldaccordingtogeneticgroupings,and languagesoftheworldaccordingtopoliticalstatus 42

couldbeexpandedgreatly.Onlyatinyfractionoftheworld'sindividuallanguageswerementioned inthefirstsurvey,andinthesecondmanylanguagesofconsiderablenationalandeveninternational importancewereomitted.Oneobviousdesideratumwouldbealistofthelanguagesthathavethe mostspeakers;thisgapisfilledby"LanguageFiles"(1971a),whichhasspeakerfiguresforabout threehundredmajorlanguages.(FromkinandRodman,1978:34750,providealesssystematically chosenlistwithspeakerfigures.) Toalinguist,alanguagewithonlyafewremainingspeakersmightbethemostfascinatingofallthe world'slanguages.Toanativespeakerofsuchalanguage,thedyinglanguagemightsymbolizethe lossofanentireculture.Onelessonhistoryteachesusisthatthelanguagesmostlikelytosurvive (andtoleavedescendants)arethosethathaveofficialnationalstatusand/ormillionsofspeakers. Powerfulnationsspreadtheirlanguagesattheexpenseofotherlanguages;andwhenempiresfail,as didthoseoftheSumeriansandtheHittites,theirlanguagesarelikelytodieaswell.Thehistoriesof languagesareadirectreflectionofthehistoriesoftheirspeakers,sothestudyoflinguisticdiversity ultimatelyleadsustothestudyofthewholeofhumanhistory. BIBLIOGRAPHY Note:Starredentriesprovideusefulsurveysofthelanguagesofparticularfamiliesorregions. AdovasioJ.M.,andR.C.Carlisle.1984."AnIndianHunter'sCampfor20,000Years."Scientific American250,5:13036.
*BenedictPaulK.(Contributingeditor:JamesA.Matisoff.)1972.SinoTibetan:AConspectus.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

*.1973.AustroThai.NewHaven,Conn.:HumanRelationsAreaFilesPress.

BirdCharles,andTimothyShopen.1979."Maninka".InTimothyShopen,ed.,Languagesand TheirSpeakers(Cambridge,Mass.:Winthrop),59111.
*CampbellLyle,andMarianneMithun,eds.1979a.TheLanguagesofNativeAmerica:Historical

andComparativeAssessment.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
*CampbellLyle,andMarianneMithun.1979b."Introduction."InTheLanguagesofNative

America,ed.L.CampbellandM.Mithun.

*CapellArthur.1969.ASurveyofNewGuineaLanguages.Sydney:SydneyUniversityPress. *CatfordJ.C.1977."MountainofTongues:TheLanguagesoftheCaucasus."AnnualReviewof

Anthropology6:283314.
*CollinderBjorn.1965.AnIntroductiontotheUralicLanguages.Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress. Press.

*ComrieBernard.1981.TheLanguagesoftheSovietUnion.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

DriverHaroldE.1969.IndiansofNorthAmerica.2ded.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. FromkinVictoria,andRobertRodman.1978.AnIntroductiontoLanguage.2ded.NewYork:Holt, RinehartandWinston. 43

GleasonHenryA.,Jr.1961.AnIntroductiontoDescriptiveLinguistics.2ded.NewYork:Holt, RinehartandWinston.
*GreenbergJosephH.1966.TheLanguagesofAfrica.Bloomington:UniversityofIndianaPress

andTheHague:Mouton.

.1971."TheIndoPacificHypothesis."InCurrentTrendsinLinguistics,ed.ThomasA.Sebeok. Vol.8:LinguisticsinOceania.TheHague:Mouton. HaasMaryR.1976."AmericanIndianLinguisticPrehistory."InNativeLanguagesoftheAmericas, ed.T.A.Sebeok.NewYork:PlenumPress,Vol.1:2358.

*HancockIanF.1971."AMapandListofPidginandCreoleLanguages."InPidginizationand

CreolizationofLanguages,ed.D.Hymes.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.50923. [Thislistincludeseightylanguages.]
*.1977."RepertoryofPidginandCreoleLanguages."InPidginandCreoleLinguistics,ed.A.

Valdman.Bloomington:UniversityofIndianaPress,pp.36291.[Thislistincludes127languages,so itismorecompletethantheprecedingitem;butitishardertouse,becausethenumbereditemsare notdiscussedinorder,butratheraccordingtovocabularylanguage.]

*HolmJohn.Forthcoming.ASurveyofPidginandCreoleLanguages.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

*JacobsenWilliamH.,Jr.1979."HokanInterbranchComparison."InTheLanguagesofNative

America,ed.L.CampbellandM.Mithun,pp.54591.
*LandarHerbert.1976."SouthandCentralAmericanIndianLanguages."InNativeLanguagesof

theAmericas,ed.T.A.Sebeok.NewYork:PlenumPress,Vol.2:401527.

LanguageFiles:Listoflanguageswithnumbersofnativespeakers.1971a.Washington,D.C.: CenterforAppliedLinguistics. LanguageFiles:Listofpoliticalunitswithlanguagesspokenineach.1971b.Washington,D.C.: CenterforAppliedLinguistics. LiCharlesN.,andSandraA.Thompson.1979."Chinese:DialectVariationsandLanguage Reform."InLanguagesandTheirStatus,ed.T.Shopen.Cambridge,Mass.:Winthrop,pp.294335.

*LoukotkaCestmir.1968.ClassificationofSouthAmericanIndianLanguages.LosAngeles:

UCLALatinAmericanCenter. MatisoffJamesA.1973."TonogenesisinSoutheastAsia."InConsonantTypesandTones,ed.L.M. Hyman.(SCOccasionalPapersinLinguistics,no.1),pp.7395. MeilletAntoine,andMarcelCohen.1952.Leslanguesdumonde.2vols.Paris:Champion.

*MithunMarianne.1979."Iroquoian."InTheLanguagesofNativeAmerica,ed.L.Campbelland

M.Mithun,pp.132212.

NationalGeographicAtlasoftheWorld(1981;updatedbylatersupplements).Washington,D.C.: NationalGeographicSociety.
*PinnowHeinzJurgen.1963."ThePositionoftheMundaLanguagesWithintheAustroasiatic

Family."InLinguisticComparisoninSoutheastAsiaandthePacific,ed.H.L.Shorto.London: SchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies,pp.14052.
*PoppeNicholas.1965.IntroductiontoAtlaicLinguistics.Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz.

RuhlenMerritt.1975.AGuidetotheLanguagesoftheWorld.Stanford,Calif.:Language

UniversalsProject. 44

SapirEdward.1921."ABird'seyeViewofAmericanLanguagesNorthofMexico."Science54:408. SebeokThomasA.,ed.1963.CurrentTrendsinLinguistics.Amultivolumeseries.TheHague: Mouton.

*.1976.NativeLanguagesoftheAmericas.2vols.NewYork:PlenumPress. *SilversteinMichael.1979."Penutian."InTheLanguagesofNativeAmerica,ed.L.Campbelland

M.Mithun,pp.65091. VoegelinC.F.,andF.M.Voegelin.196466."LanguagesoftheWorld."Anthropological Linguistics,Vols.68. .1973.IndexoftheWorld'sLanguages.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofHealth, Education,andWelfare.

*WurmS.A.1972.LanguagesofAustraliaandTasmania.TheHague:Mouton. *,ed.1977.NewGuineaAreaLanguagesandLanguageStudy.3vols.(PacificLinguistics,C38

C40.)Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.

*YallopColin.1982.AustralianAboriginalLanguages.London:AndreDeutsch. *ZvelebilKamil.1970.ComparativeDravidianPhonology.TheHague:Mouton.

45

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 46

3 THELANGUAGESITUATIONINARABICSPEAKINGNATIONS AlaaElgibali Theetymologyoftheword"Arab"isobscure.Somescholars,however,believethatitisderived fromtheSemiticrootcabarmeaning"pass"or"cross,"whichimpliesnomadism.Thenamewas originallyusedtorefertothenomadictribes(theBedouins)thatinhabitedthenorthernpartsof theArabianPeninsula,withthecorollary"raider."Thefirstdocumentationoftheword"Arab"in historyexistsinanAssyrianinscriptionof853B.C.,commemoratingthedefeatofarebellious tribalchiefcalledGindibutheArab(seeCarmichael,1967).Fromtheveryearliesttimeson, Arabicspeakingtownandvillagedwellers(alHadar)wereclusteredaroundcommercial centerslocatedalongthetraderoutesandinthefertilelandsintheperipheriesoftheArabian Peninsula.Nonetheless,theterm"Arab"wascommonlyusedbynonArabicspeakers,especially orientalistsorArabists,toreferto"anativeorinhabitantofArabia,oramemberoftheArabic divisionoftheSemiticpeoples"(Webster'sDictionary,2dedition,1979).Currently,however, theterm"Arab"isusedindiscriminatelytorefertoallArabicspeakingpeopleregardlessoftheir diverseethnicroots,national,orreligiousaffiliations.Thisispartiallyduetothefrequent referenceinthemassmediatothe"ArabIsraeliconflict,"followingthecreationofIsraelin 1948,withoutdifferentiatingbetweenthedifferentethnicgroupsthatexistineachArabic speaking(orArab)state. Theextensionoftheword"Arab"toincludeallArabicspeakingpeopleisaconvenient,though ambiguous,simplification.Thisisthecasebecause,althoughtheoverwhelmingMuslim majorityoftheinhabitantsofthemodernArabicspeakingnationsassumetheidentity"Arab"as anationalidentitydisguisingtheirdiverseethnicroots,someminoritygroupsprefertoascribeto themselvesotherprimarynationalidentities.Theseminoritygroupseithercom 47

pletelydissociatethemselvesfromtheidentity"Arab,"whichhastoooftenbeenerroneously equatedwith"Muslim,"orassumeitasasecondaryidentity.ChristianLebanese,forexample, privatelyresentbeingcalledArabs,althoughpubliclytheyrefertothemselvesassuch.Ethnically, theCoptsinEgyptseethemselvesasCopts(orthedescendantsoftheancientEgyptians)and nationallyasEgyptians.TheCoptsaccepttheidentity"Arab"asaglobalnationalidentityonlyin thepresenceofacommoncauseunifyingtheentireregionofArabicspeakingpeople,forexample, thebeginningsofpanArabnationalisminthe1880sorthethreatofZionisminthiscentury.The ambiguityoftheterm"Arab"isalsoaresultofthesuperficialparadoxbetweenthefactthatIslam considersdistinctionsbasedonnational,ethnic,orracialgroundsastotallyunimportant,while,on theotherhand,oneeffectofthespreadofIslamwastocreateraciallymixedandreligiously heterogeneouscommunitieswhosepeoplewerekeenlyawareoftheirdifferences.These communitieswerecreatedbytheArabmigrants(fromArabia)throughoutEast,Central,North Africa,GreaterSyria,Iraq,andotherpartsofAsia. INTRODUCTION AlthoughthelanguagesituationinArabicspeakingnationsmaynotatfirstglanceappear particularlycomplex,acloserlookwillrevealanintricatearrayoflanguages,dialects,and intradialectalvariation.Thecomplexityisnotthatofamultiplicityoflanguagesallcontendingfora shareinnationallife.Rather,theregionischaracterizedbythepersistentinterplayoftwothemes runningthroughseveralhundredyearsofhistory.Thesetwothemesarebidialectalism(diglossia) withinArabicandthebilingualismofcontactsituationsthathaveoftenbutnotalwaysresultedina shifttoArabic.Thischapterdiscussesthesetwothemesseparatelyandincludeshistoricaland linguisticdatapertinenttoeach.Thereadershouldremember,however,thatthisisanunnatural dissectionandthatbidialectalismandbilingualismarenotcompletelyseparatedeither chronologicallyorgeographically.Onthecontrary,theyrepresenttwobasiccomponentsofasingle picture:thatofthelanguagesituationintheArabicspeakingnations. LANGUAGESITUATIONBEFOREANDAFTERISLAM Bidialectalism TheexistenceofdivergentArabicdialectscanbetracedbacktopreIslamicperiods,thatis,before 1IntheArabianSaharaseveraltribescoexisted,enjoyingdifferentdegrees theseventhcenturyA.D. ofprestigeandpowerandspeakingdifferentdialectsofArabic.M.Eid(1981),throughanecdotal evidence,showsthatsuchdifferentdialectsexisted,andindicatesthatthedomainofdivergence includedlexicon,morphology,syntax,andsemantics.Immediatelyafterthe 48

inceptionofIslam,thatis,duringtheperiodwhenmissionariesandwrittencommunicationswere beingdispatchedtospreadthenewreligion,severalscholarstookuponthemselvesthetaskof recordingtheHadith(speech)oftheprophetMuhammad.OnesuchscholarwasIbnAl'athir,who recordedthefollowinganecdote: HavingheardtheprophetspeaktoadelegationfromBaniNahd,AliBinAbiTalibsaid toMuhammad,"Wearethesonsofonefather;wehearyoutalktoArabdelegatesand yetwedonotunderstandmostofwhatyousay."Theprophetanswered,"Godeducated mewell!" InanotherHadithMuhammadsays,"Iwasorderedtotalktopeopleinsuchawaythattheycan understand."CommentingonaletterwhichMuhammadsenttothetribeofHemyar,Eidmentions thatinafortytwowordparagraphfifteenwordswereexclusivetothelocaldialectofHemyar.In addition,henotesareplacementofthevoicedpharyngealfricativewithintheimperativeformofthe triradicalverb?acta("give").Perhapsthebestproofforthedivergenceofthedialectsimmediately beforeIslamisthefactthattherearestillsevendifferentacceptablepronunciationsforrecitingthe Qur'an.Thesealqiraa'aatalsabc("thesevenreadings")reflectthesevenmostprestigiousor influentialdialectsatthetimeofthedocumentationoftheQur'an. Atalltimesthentherewasanawarenessofandanaspirationtoacquireaprestigioussuperposed standardvariety.BeforeIslam,theselectionofonetribaldialectratherthananotherasthestandard linguisticnormwasdeterminedbyintricateinteractionsofsocioeconomic,cultural,tribal,and/or literaryconsiderations.ThetribesinArabianevershiftedtoanyoftheassumedstandardsand alwaysmaintainedtheirowndialectsasamothertongueandasasymboloftribalhonorandpride (seeAbouSeida,1972).However,withtheinceptionofIslamin640A.D.andthedocumentationof theQur'an,therivalryamongthevariousdialectsforthepositionofthesuperposedstandardcame toanabruptend.IntheearlydaysofIslam,thelinguisticmodeloftheQur'animmediatelyassumed supremacyoverallregionaldialects,somuchsothatevennonMuslimsvieweditasthelinguistic modeltoemulate.Pretendingtobeaprophethimself,oneofthemostardentenemiesofthenew religion,MusailamaalKadhab,declaredthattheocularprooftotheauthenticityofhisprophethood layinthelinguisticsophisticationofhis"religious"textswhichhecomparedtothatoftheQur'an. ThefactthatArabshavetraditionallybeenlanguageorientedisbestdemonstratedbytheexistence ofSouqOokadh("Okadhmarket")whichwasheldannuallyduringtheHajj("pilgrimage")season. SouqOokadhservedasthestageforpoliticalandculturalactivitiesandtrade.Themostprominent culturalactivitywastheliterarycontestsamongpoets.Poetscompeted,andthewinningpoems(al Mucalaqat)werepermanentlydisplayedonthewallsofalkacba,themostsacredplaceforthe Arabs. 49

Billingualism BeforeIslam(i.e.,before640A.D.),thenorthernpartsoftheArabianPeninsula,knownas"Badiyat alShaam,"servedbothasalargebufferzoneofdesertlikelandseparatingthePersianandRoman empiresandasatargetofexpansionforbothempires.BadiyatalShaamrepresentedatriangle situatedinthemiddlebetweenthefertilelandsofIraqtothenorth,theSinaiDesert,theDeadSea, thefertilelandsoftheJordanValley,Palestine,andGreaterSyria(theFertileCrescent)tothewest, andtheDajlaandFuratriverstotheeast.Itservedasabattlefieldintheseriesofindecisive, intermittentwars(330648A.D.)betweenthePersianandRomanempires(Byzantium)to dominatetheFertileCrescentandgainaccesstothemajortraderoutespassingthroughBadiyatal Shaam.SomeoftheinhabitantsofArabiaandBadiyatalShaamalliedthemselveswiththe Romans,andotherswiththePersians.Thesemilitaryalliancesalsoopenedthedoorforsome culturalcontactsthatresultedinthecreationofabilingualelite.Thebilingualsactedasmilitary mediatorsandtrademiddlemenbetweentheArabsononehandandthePersiansortheRomanson theother.ThelinguisticinfluenceofthebilingualeliteonArabicwasminimal,however,andits domainwasconfinedmainlytolexemesparticulartotheRomanorPersiancultures,withno equivalentinthecultureoftheBedouinsoralHadar.Moreover,becauseboththePersiansandthe Romans,atthetime,werethesuperpowersinthearea,theylookedindisdainattheArabicculture and,therefore,werenotinfluencedbytheArabsortheirlanguage. TheseventhandeighthcenturiesA.D.witnessedtheeraofgreatMuslimexpansionwhichreached insidethebordersofIndiaandChinainAsia,Sudan,Egypt,andallthewaywestthroughMorocco inAfrica,andSpainandpartsofFranceinEurope.Linguistically,Arabic,whichbythenwaswell establishedasthelanguageofIslamandthenewIslamicstate,facedseveralchallengesduringthat period:thelanguagesoftheformercolonists(mainlyHellenicGreek,Persian,andVulgarLatin) whichwereusedasthelanguagesofadministrationandgovernment,competitionfromthelocal languages(forexample,CopticinEgyptandBerberinMorocco),andthechallengeofadaptingto thenewandwidelydiverselocalculturesintheopenedterritories. TheconsolidationofArabicastheofficiallanguageofgovernmentreplacingthelanguagesofthe formercolonistswasnotamajorproblembecausetheselanguageshadalwaysremainedjustthat: thelanguagesofgovernment.InEgypt,forexample,HellenicGreekdidnotinfiltrateorreplace Coptic,eventhoughithadbeentheofficiallanguageofgovernmentforthreecenturies(33330 B.C.).LatinleftonlyfewlinguistictracesonthelocallanguagesinnorthwestAfrica,despitethe Romancontroloftheareaforfivedecades(seeAbdulRahman,1971:61).Thepeoplesofthe openedcountriessimplydidnotcareifonecoloniallanguagereplacedanother. Notsurprisingly,theimmediatereactionofthelocalpeopleswastoadheretotheirownlanguages inthefaceofthenewlanguageofadministration.Of 50

extremeimportancetounderstandingthelanguagesituationatthattimeisthedistinctionbetween Arabization(i.e.,theArabsattemptingtomakenonArabsbecomeArablike)andArabophilia(i.e., nonArabswantingtobecomelikeArabs).ThetermArabization,thoughcommonlyused,isa misconceptionsincetheexpandingArabsonlywantedtospreadIslamandnothingmore. ArabizationwasneveradeclaredpolicyoftheIslamicstate.Theliteratureisfullofanecdotal referencestotheeffectthattheArabimmigrantsrespectedthelocalcustomsandculturalnorms. TheeffectsofthesocalledArabizationmovementonthelanguagesituationinthatperiodledtoa slowshifttoArabicintheabsenceofcoercivepolicy,forcingthesubjectsoftheIslamicstateto shifttoArabic.ItwastheArabophilewho,adoptingIslamasafaith,acceptedthepremisethat Arabic,thelanguageoftheQur'an,wastheappropriatelanguageforeveryMuslimtolearnand speak.ItwastheArabophilewho,inthebeginningoftheMuslimadministration,learnedArabic andactedasatranslatorbetweenthelocalpeopleandtheArabs.OthertranslatorswereArabswho werecommissionedbythestatetolearnthelanguagesofthenewterritories.Together,the ArabophileandtheArabtranslatorsrepresentedthefirstgenerationofbilinguals,inArabicand someotherlanguage,intheseterritories. Theemergenceoflargerbilingualcommunitieswasheraldedbythemassmigrationmovementsof Arabictribesthatcametosettleinthenewterritoriesforreligiousandeconomicreasons,andthe moreintenseculturalandsocialcontactsandintermarriagesbetweenthemandthelocalpeople. ThenatureandsizeofthemigrationmovementresultedinextendingthedomainofArabictoother localcultural,judicial,military,andliteraryaspectsofdailylife.Withtheincreaseinthenumberof localsbecomingMuslims,andtheupsetinthenumericalbalanceofthepopulationcreatedbythe migrationofArabMuslimsfromArabia,Arabicbegantotakeoverasthecommonlanguageaswell asthelanguageofwidercommunication.AlthoughtherateofshifttoArabicvariedfromoneplace toanotherfordifferentreasons,thetypicalpatternwasforthelocalpeople,atleastinurbancenters, toshifttoArabicoverthreegenerations.AbdulRahman(1971:67)reportsthatasearlyas710A.D. tenthousandBerberswereconscriptsinthearmyinvadingSpain,andthelanguageofthearmywas Arabic.Thelocallanguages,however,didnotdisappear;instead,theywereusuallymaintainedas religiouslanguages,likeCopticinEgypt,orasahomelanguage,likeNubiinupperEgyptorBerber intheAfricansubSahara. CURRENTLANGUAGESITUATION DiglossiaVersusContinuum ThecodificationofClassicalArabicbythegrammarians,whoweremotivatedprimarilybytheir desiretopreservethelinguisticmodeloftheQur'ananditspurity,ledtothemaintenanceofa "fossilized"languageformthatbecame,foreveryMuslim,theobjectofreverencewhichonemight aspiretomaster.How 51

ever,theattemptsofArabicspeakerstoattainormasterthisstrictlycodified,reveredmodel remained,exceptforadedicatedfew,mainlyfruitless.Meanwhile,thereallanguageofArabic speakers,asrepresentedintheirdialects,followedthenaturalpathoflanguagegrowthandchange. Theresultwasthewideningofthegapbetweenthelocaldialectsandthesuperposedvarietythat existedinthetraditional,thatis,preIslamic,modelofbidialectalism.Themorethedialects changedandadaptedthemselvestonewculturesandtechnologicaladvanceswhileClassical Arabicremainedartificiallystabilizedthegreaterthedifferencesbecamebetweenthemandthe classicalform.Thefollowingsectionsoutlinetherelationshipsbetweentheclassicalformandthe dialects,asthefirststeptowardanunderstandingofthecurrentlanguagesituationin Arabicspeakingnations. TwodescriptionsofthecurrentlanguagesituationintheArabicspeakingnationsexist.Inhis classicarticleonthesubject,CharlesA.Ferguson(1959)characterizesthelanguagesituationin 2Hedefinesthistermas: Arabicspeakingnationsasoneofdiglossia. Arelativelystablelanguagesituationinwhichinadditiontotheprimarydialectsofthe language(whichmayincludeastandardorregionalstandards),thereisaverydivergent, highlycodified(oftengrammaticallymorecomplex)superposedvarietythevehicleofa largeandrespectedbodyofwrittenliteratureeitherofanearlierperiodorinanother speechcommunitywhichislearnedlargelybyformaleducationandusedformost writtenandformalspokenpurposesbutnotusedbyanysectorofthecommunityfor ordinaryconversation(232). FergusonthusrecognizesonlytwolevelsofArabic:H,asuperposedvarietywithnoregional variants,andL,acollectivetermfortheregionaldialects.AccordingtoFerguson,eachlevelhasits ownlinguisticpropertiesandcodifiedsetoffunctions.Fergusonacknowledgesonlyslight overlappingbetweenthetwolevelsand,therefore,predictsthatinonespeechepisodeonlyLorH willbeusedwithminimaloverlapping.Overlapping,Fergusonstates,referstotheswitchingfromL toH,orviceversa,butnottowhatwemaytermfusionoffeaturesinthesameutterance.Each utterance,therefore,isclearlyeitherHorLbutnotamixtureofboth. ExpandingontheworkofFerguson,ElSaidBadawi(1973)characterizesthelanguagesituationin Egyptasoneofacontinuum.HemaintainsthatwithineachregionalspeechareainEgyptfive linguisticlevelscoexist,eachwithitsowndistinctivephonological,morphological,andsyntactic 3 properties. BadawiclaimsthatthedifferentlevelsofArabicfoundinEgyptarenotsegregatedentitiesas Fergusonsuggests.Rather,theyareallinterrelated.ThefivelevelswhichBadawicharacterizesfor ArabicinEgypt(andbyextensionintheArabicspeakingnations)arethefollowing: 52

1 fuSHaaltura Badawi,likeFerguson,discussesthediscourserulesthatgoverntheuseofthe . (i.e.,Classical proposedlevelsinrelationtothesocialandeducationalbackgroundofthe Arabic, speakerandtheaddressee,andtothediscoursecontent.Thus,bothauthors corresponding explainthesociolinguisticbasesofthespeaker'schoiceandhismotivationsfor toFerguson's movingoccasionallyfromonelinguisticleveltoanotherwithinthesame H). speechepisode.Auniversityprofessorlecturinginthehumanities,forexample, 2 fuSHaalcaSr willexplainaspecificpointinlevel3(educatedspoken),butwilloccasionally . (i.e.,Modern moveupthelinguisticcontinuumtolevel2(ModernStandardArabic)to Standard summarizeorgivetitlesoftopics.Thesameprofessorwillthenmovedown Arabic,the againtolevel3whenhestepsoutofthelecturehallandchatsinformallywith modernliterary astudentoracolleague;whenhegoeshomeandsitsatthedinnertable,he language, willstillmovefurtherdowntolevel4(MiddleStandardColloquial)whenhe writtenonly talkstohiswifeandchildren.Thecodeswitchingofthisprofessorwillnot hasno standoutasuniquebecauseitconformstotheexpectedlinguisticbehaviorin immediate thesesituations.Ontheotherhand,anotheruniversityprofessorlecturingin correspondence thescienceswillcodeswitchbetweenlevels3,informalsituations,and4,in inFerguson's informalsituations,butwillnotreachlevel2.Therangeavailableforeachof analysis). thetwoprofessorsforcodeswitchingdiffersbecausethosewhostudyorteach 3 cammiyyatal artsandhumanitiesaregenerallyexpectedtopossess,andperhapsdo,ahigher . muaqqafin leveloflinguisticsophisticationinArabicthanthosewhoworkinthesciences (i.e.,High andwhosejargoncontainsmanyspecializedtermsfromEnglish,French,and, Standard toalesserdegree,German. Colloquial,the everydayspoken Thegeneralpatternofcodeswitchingexhibitedbythesetwoprofessorsis languageof essentiallythesameinformasonewouldobserveinasimilarsituationin,say, educatedpeople theUnitedStates.Onefundamentaldifference,however,hastodowiththe indealingwith mechanismbywhichcodeswitchingiscarriedoutineachcaseofstyle serious variation.IntheArabiccase,theprofessorwillcodeswitchbychangingthe matters ratioofcammiyyiatfeaturestofuSHafeatures,orviceversa,inthesame corresponding utterance.Itisindeeddifficult,ifnotimpossible,todefinewhetheranyone toFerguson's utteranceisclearlyHorL.Thisprocessoffusingfeaturesfromdifferent regional linguisticlevelsinthesameutterancemakesthephenomenonofcode standardwhich switchingintheArabiccasemorecomplextoperformand,consequently, ispartofL). hardertodescribethaninthe 4 cammiyyatal 53 . mutanawwirin (Middle Standard Colloquial,the everyday languageof educatedpeople whenspeaking informallypart ofFerguson's L). 5 cammiyyatal . ummiyyin(Low

Colloquial, everyday languageofthe illiteratepartof Ferguson'sL). 53

caseofAmericanEnglishoranynon"diglossic"languagesituation.Thisprocessofcode switchingandstylevariationtakesplaceatthephonological,morphological,andsyntactic ClassesoftruebilingualsemergedinalltheArabicspeakingnationsasaresultoflongtermand closecontactwithoneormoreEuropeanlanguages.Thus,wefindbilingualsinArabiconthe onehand,andEnglish(Egypt,Sudan,Jordan,Iraq,andPalestine),French(NorthwestAfrica, Lebanon,andSyria)orItalianaswasthecaseinLibyaandpartsofSomalilands.Thesizeof bilingualsectionsinthesesocietiesvariedconsiderablyanddependedmainlyonlengthoftime ofthecontactsituation,andthenatureofthecontact,culturalversusmilitary.Bilingualismin ArabicandEnglishinEgypt,andFrenchinLebanon,forexample,wasconfinedprimarilytothe upperclasses,whoassociatedthemselveswiththe"developed"Westerners,andpartsofthe middleclasseswhocorrectlyviewedmasteringthelanguagesoftherulersasanecessarystepto achieveupwardmobility.InNorthwestAfrica,Frenchthoroughlyinfiltratedmanydomainsof dailypubliclife,thegovernment,andeducation.Thiswassomuchthecasethat,giventhe FrenchattitudethatAlgeriashouldbepermanentlyannexedtoFrance,Arabicwasbecomingthe secondlanguagetomanyresidents. DIGLOSSIAANDBILINGUALISM Since1959whenFergusonhighlightedthetermdiglossia,attemptshavebeenmadetoextendits scopeandtoredefineitsbasicsetofimplications.Severalscholarsadvocatetheuseofasingle theoreticalmodeltohandleallcodevariation,whethermonolingualorbilingual.J.Macnamara notesthat"inthedecadefollowingthepublicationofFerguson'sarticlethetermdiglossiawas extendedtorefertoallsituationsinwhichastandardvarietyisusedforthepurposesofmore formalcommunication,andarelatively'uncultivated'varietyisusedformoreintimate communication"(1967:3). MacnamaraattributesthesourceofthegeneralizationofthedomainofFerguson'stermtothe attemptsofJoshuaFishman(1964)andJohnGumperztoprovideasingletheoreticalframework todescribethesocietalnormsthatcontroltheuseoflinguisticvarietiesinbiormultilingual speechcommunities.JohnGumperz(1961,1962,1964,1966)extendsthedomainofthetermto refertoallmultilingualormultidialectalsocietiesthatmanipulatethedifferentregistersorcodes accordingtorulesofdiscourse.TheviewsexpressedbyGumperz,Macnamara,andFishman onlyhelptotrivializethetermdiglossia,especiallywhentheArabiccaseisconcerned.The modeltheyproposeissogeneralthatitiscertainnottograspthespecialcharacteristicsinitially outlinedbyFergusonandlaterdetailedbyBadawi.Moreover,theexistenceofClassicalArabic, withitsintimateassociationwithIslam,makestheArabiclanguagesituationunique.Itisthe awarenessoftheuniquenessoftheArabiccasethatperhapsmakesbothFergusonandBadawi meetoncommonground. Theextensionorredefinitionofthetermbytheproponentsofonetheoretical 54

modelforcodevariationhasbeenrejectedbyseveralscholarsfordifferentreasons.AndrMartinet rejectstheattemptstotreatdiglossiaasatypeofbilingualism. Talkingaboutaspecificdiglossiclanguagesituation,Anghelescu(1974:89)arguesthatdiglossiais atermthatissointimatetotheArabiclanguagesituationthatapplicationtoothersupposedly similarsituationsisan"unjustifiedextrapolation."FewwillagreewithAnghelescuaboutlimiting thescopeofthetermtojustonespecificlanguagesituation,sincethepurposeofstudyingany phenomenonistoarriveatsomegeneralization,ortheory,tohelpusunderstandandmake predictionsaboutsimilarsituations. Indeed,itcanbefurtherarguedthatdiglossiaisnotaformofbilingualism,becausetheterm diglossiareferstohowthespeakersviewwhattheyspeak.Inbilingualism,thetwolinguisticforms areacknowledgedasseparateentitiesbythemembersofthecommunity;indiglossia,theyare viewedasconstitutingonlyonelanguagebythesamemembers.Thisargumentdealswithan essentialaspectofthetermasFergusonoriginallydefineditin1959,thatis,withthepsychological realityofthelinguisticvarietiesinvolved.Arabicspeakers,forexample,willusetheircolloquial variety(L)toarguestronglyagainstanycharacterizationoftheirspeechascolloquial. Unfortunately,theproponentsofaunifiedmodelignorethisessentialaspectofthephenomenon (seeAnghelescu,1974). NadiaAnghelescuwarnsagainstattemptstomixdiglossiawithbilingualismonthegroundsthat anysuchattemptswillleadtothetrivializationand/or"thedissolutionoftheterm";the incorporationofthetermintothatofstylisticfunctionalvariationwilldisguiseitsunique psychologicalandlinguistictraits.Thisisthecasebecause"diglossiaimpliessufficientlysimilar languagesforthespeakerstofeelthatitisthesamelanguage,yetremoteenough,sothatthe acquisitionoftheliterarylanguageimplieslongtermeffortsandcanneverbefullyachieved" (1974:83). Thedesiresoftheproponentsofonetheoryofalltypesofcodevariationconstitutealegitimate cause.However,theframeworksproposedbytheseproponentsofonemodelhaveignoredthe uniquecharacteristicsoftheterminFerguson'ssense,andhavesofaronlyledtothedissolutionof thetermasAnghelescuwarned.Wehavenotgainedanynewinsightsintotheinteractionof sociologicalandpsychologicalphenomena.Instead,wehavelostatermthatwascapable,in Ferguson'ssense,ofhelpingusunderstand,interrelate,andmakepredictionsaboutthebehaviorofa particulartypeoflanguagesituationandthepsychologicalattitudesofitsspeakers. LANGUAGEPOLICIES DialectVariation InterestinstudyingthedialectsbeganintheearlydaysofIslamasaresultofthecodificationof ClassicalArabic.Notsurprisingly,thegrammariansviewed 55

thedialectsasbastardizedordebasedformsofArabicandstudiedtheminorderto"purify"them ofanyregionalfeatures.OfgreatimportancetothegrammarianswasthattheMuslimsshould recitetheQur'anicverses"correctly."Themodelof"correctness,"however,wasnotlimitedto thespeechpatternsofonedialect.Instead,asetcomprisingsevendialectswaswidelyrecognized asacceptablemodelsforrecitation.Thedifferencesamongthemembersofthissetneverwent beyondthephoneticlevel.I.Anis(1975)claimsthattheriseandconsolidationofIslamduring theseventhcenturyA.D.createdevenmoreawarenessoftheimportanceoflinguisticcorrectness and"purity."ThisincreasingimportancestemmedfromtheMuslim'sbeliefthatMuhammadwas onlyamessengerwhosemaintaskwastodelivertheQur'an,whichwascomposedbyGod Himself.TheQur'anwasdocumentedinthedialectofQuraish,thetribetowhichMuhammad belonged.BythemiddleoftheseventhcenturyA.D.,totheMuslimsArabicmeantthelanguage ofGod.AnycolloquialtribaldialectotherthanthatofQuraishwasviewedevenbyitsnative speakersasabastardizedvarietywhosemostnaturaldomainofusagewasinthehomeandfor intragroupactivities. WhenIslambegantospreadwidelyasafaithandasawayoflife,thegrammariansbeganto haveadifferentproblem:thenonArabMuslimshadtolearnthelanguageofthenewreligion. Thegrammariansstartedtofaceyetanotherproblem,thatis,laHn("diversityfromthelinguistic modeloftheQur'an").Inaddition,theselfappointedguardiansofthelanguagefacedtheinflux ofborrowingofvocabularyitemsfromthelanguagesincontactwithArabicinthedomainsof cultureandknowhow.Thesetwoproblemsinitiatedthethereafterextremelyinfluentialworkof Arabgrammariansandauthorsofdictionarieswhoseworkwasintendedmainlytopreservethe "purity"ofthelanguageamongtheArabsandtofacilitateteachingittononnativespeakerswho wereincreasinglyadoptingIslamasafaith. Thequestionoflinguisticdiversityandmutualintelligibilityamongthespeakersofthe numerousgeographicalmodernArabicdialectsbegantobeseriouslyentertainedbytheturnof thiscentury.Somearabists(seeSaid,1980)contributedthemajorshareindirectingtheattention ofArabnationalistsandeducatorstotheimportanceofaddressingthequestionofdialect variation.Sincethen,Arabpoliticiansandthinkershaveadoptedstancesrangingfromone extremetotheother.AgroupofpanArabnationalists(forexample,AbdulRahman,1971) advocatesthegradualeliminationofthelocaldialectsinfavorofaunifiedstandardlinguistic variety,whichtheyequatewithClassicalArabic.Sharingthegoalsofthisgroup,whichis mainlymotivatedbythedesiretopreservethelanguageoftheOur'anandtoachievethelong desiredPanArabismfromIraqtoMorocco(seeAnis,1970),theinfluentialAlAzharUniversity offeredfinancialandmoralsupporttotheircommoncause. Thesecondgroup(forexample,VilhelmSpitta,1880)takestheotherextremeanddemandsthe eliminationoftheartificiallysuperposedclassicalinfavorofthelocaldialectswhich,they believe(perhapsrightly),arefullfledgedlan 56

guages.Thisgroupclaimsthattheartificialmaintenanceofthe"fossilized"ClassicalArabicis responsibleforthe"retardation"oftheArabstoday(seeShoubi,1951;Spitta,1880).Two problemsareassociatedwiththismovement:first,itwasstartedbyWesternerswhich,inlightof thefactthatitsclaimsthreatenedtheeventualdeathofthelanguageoftheQur'an,madeits proponentssuspect;and,second,itsdemandmeanttheeliminationofwhatisperceivedasa powerfulunifyingfactoressentialtoachievingthegoalsofthepanArabmovement. Thethirdgroup,ledmainlybythethreelanguageacademiesinDamascus(Syria),Cairo (Egypt),andRabat(Morocco)andtheArabLeague,takesamiddlepositionby(1) acknowledgingtheimportanceofmaintainingClassicalArabicasaunifyingforceintheArab world,and(2)havingthecommonsenseandlinguisticsophisticationtoadmitthatdialectsare notbastardizedformsoftheclassical.Thisthirdgrouptakescreditformostoftheserious researchdoneintheareaofpanArabeducation(seeAbouSeida,1972),whichaimsat coordinatingthevariouseducationalcurriculaintheArabworldtoday. TheofficiallanguagepoliciesthatsupportthespreadandconsolidationofStandardArabic, oftenconfusedwiththeclassicalform,haveingeneralbeenineffectiveandnoncomprehensive. Forexample,thereisnocoordinationbetweenallthevariousorganizationscontrollingthe linguisticlevelpresentedtothepeopleasamodeltofollow.Textbooksandcurriculaare scrutinizedonlyfortheircontentbutneverfortheirlinguisticform.Mostcollegegraduates completetheiracademicstudieswithouteverhavingtoconsultanArabicdictionary.Infact, Arabicdictionariesarenolongerarequirededucationalaid.Moreover,researchpertinentto languageplanningisvirtuallynonexistent. Bilingualism ThespreadoftheArabiclanguagewasamajorprioritytoMuhammadandhisfollowers.The prophetwasquotedasoncesaying,"seekingknowledgeisthedutyofeveryMuslim."Tohim, theappropriatelanguageforseekingknowledgewasArabic.Thus,intheearlydaysofIslam, messengers(educators)wereroutinelydispatchedtospreadliteracyinArabic.Duringthefirst twocenturiesofMuslimexpansioninnonArabicspeakingareas,conflictsaroseastowhether thelanguageofeducation,especiallyamongnonMuslims,shouldbeArabicorthealready establishedlanguageofeducationwhichwasusuallythelocallanguage.Theofficialpolicyof theIslamicstatewastoallowbilingualeducationinArabicfortheMuslimsandinthelocal languagefortheothers.Theseconflictswereeventuallyandamicablyresolvedasthemajorityof thelocalpopulationsgraduallyadoptedIslamandshiftedtoArabic. CurrentgovernmentpoliciesinArabicspeakingnationsvaryconsiderablyastotherole bilingualeducationshouldplayinnationallife.NorthwestAfricancountrieshaveadoptedand seriouslypursuedanArabizationmovementinallfieldsofeducationtooffsettheformerly pervasivepracticeofofferingeducation 57

inFrench.Egypt,ontheotherhand,allowsbilingualeducationinthehardsciencesandfields, relyingonEuropeanlanguagesforknowhow,butnotinthehumanities.Pressedforthe knowledgeandknowhowappliedthroughthemajorEuropeanlanguages,mostgovernments agreethat,whilebilingualeducationshouldbekepttoaminimum,Europeanlanguagesshould beofferedassecondorforeignlanguages. TheindigenoushomelanguagesthatarescatteredaroundtheArabicspeakingnationsdonot contendforaplaceintheeducationalsystemandcontinuetoremainjustthat:homelanguages. Perhapstheexplanationofthisattitudeispracticalityandeconomy.Evenifspeakersof indigenouslanguagesaregrantedbilingualeducation,thedomainoftheirlocallanguageswill remainthehome.Inaddition,itisArabicthatwillallowthemtojointhemainstreamof contendersforupwardmobility.Moreover,thesespeakersaremostlyMuslimandthereforelook favorablyatArabic,thelanguageofIslam.Theonlyexampleofanindigenousgroupdemanding therighttobilingualeducationandanationalplacefortheirlanguagesisthesouthernSudan wherethepaganinhabitantsarealsoseekingtohaveanindependentstate. CONCLUSIONS Theabovediscussioncannotpretendtobecomplete.Onlyafewoftheissuesaredetailedina fewcountriesovercenturiesofconflictanddevelopment.Thepointsdiscussed,however,are intendedtoillustratetheimportanceofthetwinthemesofbidialectalism(diglossia)and bilingualism. Threepointsneedtobeemphasized.First,adescriptionofArabicisincompletewithout adoptingFerguson'snotionofdiglossiaandincorporatingBadawi'sanalysisofthecontinuum. Furthermore,theconditionofdiglossiacanbeunderstoodonlyifonerecallsthesupreme authorityoftheQur'aninallmatters,especiallylanguage. Second,weshouldkeepinmindthatbilingualismisnotanovelconditionintheArabicspeaking nations.Itisregardedasafactoflife.Forhundredsofyears,Arabichasbeenoneofthe languagesinvolved;the"other"languagehasbeendifferentatdifferenttimesandindifferent places.Inaddition,bilingualismhaspersistedforaconsiderabletimeandhasresultedinshift onlywhenculturalassimilationhasoccurred.Wherelargenumbersofpeoplechosetoadopt Arabic,asinEgypt,andwherelargenumbersofArabicspeakingmigrantssettledona permanentbasis,thebilingualcontactsituationledtoageneralshifttoArabic.Incasesofshift, theindigenouslanguagemayhavebeenretainedforreligiouspurposes(Coptic)orasahome language(Berber).Ontheotherhand,wherebilingualismoccurredonlyforthepurposeof upwardmobilityintogovernmentandadministration,asinthecaseoftheGreekdominationin Egypt,thebilingualsituationwaslimitedintheextentofitsdomain,thelengthoftimeit persisted,andthefinaloutcome.Thatoutcomewasmaintenanceoftheindigenouslanguage.On thebasisofthishistoricaltendency,wemightexpectasimilaroutcome 58

formodernbilingualismincolonialsettingsthatinvolvestheuseofoneoftheEuropean languages. Thethirdandfinalpointofemphasisisthatformaleffortsatlanguageplanning,suchasthoseof theacademies,haveonlysucceededinpreservingthehighformofArabic.Thereisgeneral agreementthataunifiedpanArabstandardshouldexistforallArabicspeakingnations,but thereisnoagreementonwhatthestandardshouldlooklike.Governmentsintheregionhavenot providedcomprehensiveplansforthelanguageineducation,andtheplansthatexisthavenot beenimplementedastheywereintended.Itisperhapsironicthatacoherentpolicyforthe teachingofsecondorforeign(European)languagesdoesexist,whilenosucheffectivepolicyis availableforArabic.Suchalackisnotsurprisinginlightofthecomplexitiesofthelanguage situationinArabicspeakingnations. NOTES 1. ClassicalArabicisclassifiedasaSouthSemiticlanguage,asubgroupofGreenberg(1955) Afroasiaticlanguagefamily. 2. D.Sotiropoulos(1977)mentionsthatthetermdiglossiawasfirstusedbyKarlKrumbacher (1902)inhisbookDasproblemderModernenGriechischenSchriftsprache,wherehedealt withtheoriginandcharacteristicsofdiglossiawithspecialreferencetotheGreekand Arabiclanguagesituations.Nonetheless,itiscommonlyheldintheliteraturethattheterm wasfirstcoinedbytheFrenchlinguistW.Maraisin1930.Maraisusedthetermto describethesituationintheArabworldas"laconcurrenceentreunelanguesavantecrite etunelanguevulgaireparfoisexclusivementparle"(401). 3. ToBadawi,alinguisticlevelisasetoflinguisticpropertiesthatcharacterizesagroupas separatefromothergroups.Thelinebetweenonelinguisticlevelandanotherisdrawnbased onthelevelofeducation. BIBLIOGRAPHY AbdelZakiN.Malik1972."TheInfluenceofDiglossiaontheNovelsofYunsifalSibaaci." JournalofArabicLiterature3:13241. AbdulRahmanA.1971.OurLanguageandLife(inArabic).Cairo:DaralMa'arif. AbouSeidaAbdelrahmanA.1972."DiglossiainEgyptianArabic:ProlegomenatoaPanArabic SocioLinguisticStudy."DissertationAbstractsInternational33:739A40A. AltomaSalihJ.196970."TheProblemofDiglossiainArabic:AComparativeStudyof ClassicalandIraqiArabic."Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. AminMostafa.1956.AlNahwAlwadih.Cairo:DaralMaarif. AnghelescuNadia.1974."ArabicDiglossiaandItsMethodologicalImplications."InAngelescu M.(sic)ed.,RomanoArabica.Bucharest:RomanianAssociationforOrientalStudies,pp.81 92. AnisI.1975.OftheSecretsofLanguage(inArabic).Cairo:AngloEgyptianBookstore.

BadawiElSaid.1973.Mustawayatal'arabiyyaalmucaSirafimiSr.Cairo:DaralMacarif. BlauJoshua.1977.TheBeginningsoftheArabicDiglossia:AStudyoftheOriginsofNeoarabic. SantaBarbara,Calif.:AfroasiaticLinguistics. 59

DahdahA.1981.ADictionaryofArabicGrammarinChartsandTables.LibraireduLiban. DaltasP.1980."TheConceptofDiglossiafromaVariationistPointofViewwithReferenceto Greek."ArchivumLinguisticum:AReviewofComparativePhilologyandGeneralLinguistics 11:6588. EidM.1981.TheLinguisticLevelsofClassicalandDialects:PoetryandProse(inArabic). Cairo:AlamalKutub. ElgibaliA.1981."CorrelationBetweenCulturalAffinityandtheDomainofContactInduced LanguageChange."Unpublishedmanuscript. ElHassanS.A.1977."EducatedSpokenArabicinEgyptandtheLevant:ACriticalReviewof DiglossiaandRelatedConcepts."ArchivumLinguisticum:AReviewofComparativePhilosophy andGeneralLinguistics8:11232. FergusonCharlesA.1959."Diglossia."Word15:32540. FishmanJoshua.1964."LanguageMaintenanceandLanguageShiftasaFieldofInquiry." Linguistics9:3270. .1967."BilingualismWithandWithoutDiglossia;DiglossiaWithandWithout Bilingualism."JournalofSocialIssues23,2:2938. GumperzJohn.1961."SpeechVariationandtheStudyofIndianCivilization."American Anthropologist63:97688. .1962."TypesofLinguisticCommunities."AnthropologicalLinguistics1:2840. .1964."LinguisticsandSocialInteractioninTwoCommunities."InTheEthnographyof Communication,ed.J.GumperzandD.Hymes.AmericanAnthropologist2:13753. .1966."OntheEthnographyofLinguisticChange."InSociolinguistics,ed.Wm.Bright.The Hague:Mouton. HallRobertA.,Jr.1978."Bi(Multi)lingualismandDiglossiainLatinRomance."Forum Linguisticum3:10717. HymesDell.1967."ModelsofInteractionofLanguageandSocialSetting."JournalofSocial Issues23,2:828. KayeAlanA.1972."RemarksonDiglossiainArabic."Linguistics:AnInterdisciplinaryJournal oftheLanguageSciences81:3248. KrumbacherKarl.1902.DasProblemderModernenGriechischenSchriftsprache.Munich. KrysinLeonidP.1979."CommandofVariousLanguageSubsystemsasaDiglossic Phenomenon."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage21:14151.

LabovW.1964."PhonologicalCorrelatesofSocialStratification."AmericanAnthropologist 2:16476. .1967.TheSocialStratificationofEnglishinNewYorkCity.Washington,D.C.:Centerfor AppliedLinguistics. MacnamaraJ.1967."BilingualismintheModernWorld."JournalofSocialIssues23,2:17. MaraisW.1930."Ladiglossiearabe."L'enseignementpublic97:401409. MartinetAndr.1966."BilinguismeetPlurilinguisme."InActesduseminairedeLinguistique des14,15et16Avril1965on"LesFaitsdecontactlinguistiquesetlesniveauxdelangue." Revuetunisiennedesciencessociales3,8. McKay,JymM.1973."SyntacticSimilaritiesinArabicDiglossia."DissertationAbstracts International. 60

ParasherS.V.1980."MotherTongueEnglishDiglossia:ACaseStudyofEducatedIndian Bilinguals'LanguageUse."AnthropologicalLinguistics22:151162. SaidZ.1980.HistoryofPropagationofColloquialinEgypt(inArabic).Cairo:DaralMa'arif. SchmidtRichardW.1975."SociostylisticVariationinSpokenEgyptianArabic:A ReexaminationoftheConceptofDiglossia."DissertationAbstractsInternational. ShoubiE.1951."TheInfluenceoftheArabicLanguageonthePsychologyoftheArabs."Middle EastJournal5:284302. SotiropoulosD.1977."DiglossiaandtheNationalLanguageQuestioninModernGreece." Linguistics:AnInterdisciplinaryJournaloftheLanguageSciences197:531. SpittaW.1880.GrammatikdesarabischenVulgardialektsvonAegypten.Leipzig. ZughoulMuhammadRadji.1980."DiglossiainArabic:InvestigatingSolutions." AnthropologicalLinguistics22:20117. 61

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 62

 4 BILINGUALISMANDLINGUISTICSEPARATISMINBELGIANSCHOOLS ElizabethShermanSwing OnApril23,1968,twolanguageinspectors,onerepresentingtheDutchlanguageMinistryof BelgianEducation,theothertheFrenchlanguageMinistry,interrogatedfouryearoldLucina classroomoftheBrusselsFrenchlanguagenurseryschoolinwhichhewasenrolled(Dossier 5/68/CP).Thechild,intimidatedbythisunexpectedattention,remainedstolidlysilentwhilethe adultsintroducedsubjectsthatmightinteresthim:toys,food,dogs,"touratourenfranaiseten flamand,"accordingtothereportoftheFrenchlanguageinspector.Luc'sbriefresponse,whenit finallycame,wasfirstinDutch;then,afterproddingfromtheFrenchlanguageinspector,he spokeafewwordsofFrenchaperformancethatelicitedcontradictoryappraisalsofhis linguisticorientationintheirreports. TheFrenchlanguageinspectorreporteddifficultyindeterminingthedominantlanguageofthis bilingualchildwhoansweredquestionsaseasilyinFrenchasinDutch.Nonetheless,he recommendedthatLucbeallowedtocontinuehiseducationinFrancophoneschoolsbecause FrenchwasthelanguageusedbyLuc'smother,aFrancophoneFleming,athomeandinherjob asalibrarian.TheDutchlanguageinspector,ontheotherhand,pointedoutthatLuchadshown onlyminimalproficiencyinFrench,answeringmerely"oui"or"non"toquestionsinthat language."Ananswersuchasthatisalwaysfiftypercentcorrectbutisinnocaseproofof languagedominance,andevenlessproofofanexistingmothertongue."("Eendergelijk antwoordissteeds50%juist,maarisgeengevaleenbewijsvantaalbeheersingennogminder eenbiwijsvandebestaandemoderstaal.")InhisjudgmentthiswasnobasisforacceptingFrench asthemothertongueofachildborninFlemishBrabant.InAugust1968,theCommissionwhich adjudicatessuchdisputesbetweenlanguageinspectorsruledthatLucmusttransfertoa Netherlandishschool. TheassignmentofLuctoaschoolthatwouldreinforcehislegallinguistic 63

identityinsteadoftotheFrancophoneschoolfavoredbyhismotherisastarkexampleofthe polaritiesunderlyinglanguageplanninginBelgium.InLuc'scase,ofcourse,noplacementcould haveprecludedhisreceivingabilingualeducation,whichwastheintentofthisplanning,for, althoughnothighlyverbalineitherDutchorFrench,Lucwasalreadyfunctionallybilingual.The languageofinstructionofwhateverschoolheattendedwoulddifferfromoneofthelanguages whichhehadalreadyinternalized.InBelgium,afragileequilibriumexistsbetweenbilingualism andthemoralimperativeforpreservingthemothertongue,betweenlinguisticintegrationand linguisticsegregation,betweencosmopolitanismandethnicity;andtheschools,particularlythe schoolsofthecapitalcityBrussels,areatitsfocalpoint. Since1971,parentsinBrussels(butnotinotherpartsofBelgium)havehadgreaterfreedomto determinethelanguageoftheirchildren'seducationthantheyhadatthetimeofLuc's interrogation,buttheparadoxessurroundingbilingualeducationinthismultilingualcountry remain.Bilingualismisanationalnecessity,butitiswidelyviewedasatbestanecessaryevil (Bustamante,VanOverbeke,andVerdoodt,1978:20)."Bilingualismineducationmustbe condemned"("Lebilinguismedansl'enseignementdoittrecondamn,"statesthefinalReport oftheHarmelCenter(Centrederecherche#326,1954:6).Thisresearchbecamethebasisfor oneofthemostrigidexercisesinlanguageplanningintheworld,theBelgianLanguageLawof 1963. LANGUAGESANDLANGUAGECOMMUNITIESINBELGIUM Closeto9.9millionpeopleinhabitthe30,519squarekilometersofthismultilingualcountry( AnnuaireStatistique,1980)whichsharespoliticalborders,notnaturalboundaries,withthe Netherlands,Germany,France,andLuxembourg.Theylive,however,withinrigidlydefined linguisticzones:approximately56percentinFlanders,Dutchlanguageterritory;33percentin Wallonia,Frenchlanguageterritory;10percentintheofficiallybilingual(French/Dutch)capital, Brussels,apredominantlyFrancophoneislandwithinDutchlanguageterritory;andthereis alsoasmallGermanspeakingcommunity,lessthanIpercentofthetotalpopulation,inthe easternsectionoftheProvinceofLiegeinWallonia.TheDutch,French,andGermanlanguages haveofficialstatus,butinadditionthereareinternationalbusinessfirmsthatuseEnglishasa linguafranca;polyglotdelegatestotheEuropeanEconomicCommunityandNATO,whose headquartersareinBrussels;migrantworkers,primarilyfromItaly,Morocco,Spain,Turkey, andGreece,nearly9percentofthetotalpopulation(BastenierandDassetto,1981),manywith linguisticandculturalconcernsoftheirown.Bilingualismhasawiderangeofreferentsinthis crowdedBabel.Itis,however,thefrequentlyacrimoniousquarrelbetweentheFrenchand DutchlanguagecommunitiesthathasshapedtheinstitutionsofmodernBelgium. Scholarsstilldebatetheoriginofthesocalledlanguagelinethatdividesa 64

DutchlanguagenorthfromaFrenchlanguagesouth(Dhondt,1947:26168;Draye,1942;Kurth, 189698;Olyff,194044;Stengers,1959;Valkhoff,1944).Theyhypothesize,however,thatthe Franks,whoinvadedthisnorthernoutpostoftheRomanEmpireinthefifthcenturyA.D., succeededinestablishingtheirownTeutonictongueinthesparselypopulatednorthbutadoptedthe Latinvernacularofthemoredenselypopulatedsouth.AccordingtoGodefroidKurth(189698, 2:5),aperiodoftransitionalbilingualismprecededthislanguageshift,butitwasthe"barbarians" whowerebilingual,notthemoreadvancedRomanizedpopulation. Inthesouth,Frenchemergedasthedominantlanguage,althoughsometracesofWalloon,Picard, andLorrainsurvivedasregionaldialects.Inthenorth,anareathatincludedtheNetherlandsuntil thesixteenthcentury,Nederduitsch,adialectoflowGermansometimescalledThiois,Dietsch,or Duitsch,evolvedintomodernNederlands(Dutch),thetermusedtodesignatetheofficiallanguage ofnorthernBelgium.Untilrecently,theBelgiandialectofDutchwascalledvlaams(Flemish).This isasomewhatconfusingdesignation,forvlaamswasoriginallyadialectofthemedievalCountyof Flanders,justasBrabantineandLimburgerweredialectsofBrabantandLimburg.Eventoday, BelgianswhosemothertongueisNetheriandicarecalledFlemingsandtheirentireregionFlanders, justasFrancophoneswholiveinthesoutharecalledWalloonsandtheirregionWallonia. ForBelgoFrench,thestandardsofParishaveprevailedforcenturies,althoughasmallgroupstill speakWalloonandbooksandarticleson"belgicismes"(Hanse,1974)andonsyntactical differencesbetweenBelgoFrenchandtheFrenchofFrance(Cohen,1905)alltestifyto Francophoneconcernoveringroupidentity.ThelanguageofFlemings,ontheotherhand,hashad amorecomplicatedstruggle.FromthefirstmeetingoftheNetherlandishLanguageandLiterary Congress(NederlandseTaalenLetterkundigeCongressen)inGhentin1849,Flemishnationalists urgedadoptionofstandardDutch.ButgettingthedevoutlyCatholicFlemingstoacceptthe pronunciationandorthographyoftheProtestantNetherlands,anationwhichmanyCatholic Belgiansregardedastheseatofreligiousheresy,wasnotatfirsteasy.Aplanputforwardin1870 suggestedthatGermanratherthanDutchbethewrittenlanguage,leavingFlemishaspoken vernacular(Pirenne,192232,7:27980).OtherssuchasmembersoftheWestFlandersMovement promotedtheirowndialects.Thelinguisticsituationwassofluidintheearlyyearsofthetwentieth centurythatFlemishstudentsattheUniversityofLouvain,thenaFrenchlanguageinstitution, gatheredincafesthatcateredtotheirownlocaldialectgroup,usingFrench,however,for communicationwithFlemingswhospokeadifferentdialectandforintellectualmatters(Daumont, 1911,1:69720). StandardDutchisnowtheofficiallanguageoftheFlemishcommunityanditsschools,butthese schoolsstillfaceabigtask.Therearestillmembersofanoldergenerationwhoencountered StandardDutchforthefirsttimeinschool,stillintellectualswhoquestionwhetherimitationof Hollandersisthebestway 65

ofstabilizingtheirmothertongue(Boelen,1972:129;LeenenandClayes,1972:134),andothers whohavemadesuchazealousattempttoweedFrenchwordsfromtheirlanguagethatBelgian DutchnowcontainsfewerborrowingsfromFrenchthantheDutchoftheNetherlands(Pe, 1970:2021).Tocompoundtheproblem,manynonBelgianscholarshavecontinuedtocallthe languageofnorthernBelgiumFlemish(MeilletandTesnire,1928;Rundle,1946;ILEA,1982). EvenFlemingshaveshownreluctancetochangeoldcustoms.TheNetherlandicCulturalCouncil didnotreplacetheVlaamsinitstitlewithNederlandseuntil1972.YoungerBelgians,however, nowhearDutchfromearlychildhoodontheradioandTV,aswellasinschool;forthem(andfor theirchildren)standardDutchisfastbecomingamothertongue. LinguisticstandardsarefurthercomplicatedbythestatusofBrussels,thecapitalcityanda bilingualzonewithinFlemishBrabant.BrusselsisnottheonlyFlemishcityinwhichFrenchhas coexistedwithDutch,butitistheonlycitynorthofthelanguagelinewherethetwolanguages officiallycoexisttoday.Acenterofgovernmentalandeconomicpowerlongfearedandenviedby theotherregions"HelscheduiveldietotBrusselsijt"("theinfernaldevilwhositsinBrussels") goesasixteenthcenturyCounterReformationsaying(quotedinOmbiaux,1920:138)Brussels hashadaFrenchDutchbilingualtraditionsincetheBurgundiansestablishedtheircourttherein thefifteenthcentury.Theseatofgovernmentforasuccessionofforeignrulers:Spaniards(1579 1713),Austrians(171392),French(17921815),Dutch(181530)allbutthelatterofwhom usedFrenchformostaffairsofstate,in1830Brusselsbecamethecapitalofanewlyindependent nationthatcontinuedthisFrancophonetradition.Bythen,however,Brusselswasnolongera FlemishvillagebutwasinsteadacosmopolitancitywhosedominantculturewasFrench. ThelanguagesofBrusselsspanabroadcontinuumwhichitselfconstitutesalanguage community(BaetensBeardsmore,1971).AteitherendarethestandardformsofDutchand French,andinbetweenanamalgamofthetwolanguages.Withinthisspectrumaredialectssuch asBrabant,thespeechmostoftenusedasanexampleofVlaamsinwordsoffiction.Ofeven greaterimportanceisbruxellois,apatoisofNetherlandishsyntaxandFrenchvocabularywhich somelinguistsviewasadiscretelinguisticsystem.Bruxelloishasnoofficialstatus,justavital daytodaylife.Theproblemsfacedbypuristsgobeyondthecomplexitiesofbruxellois,however. Intheeverydayspeechofthecity,imperfectbilingualsthegroupcastigatedbyJulesDestree ([1912]1968:1617)whenheinformedtheKingthatseparatismwaspreferabletoa'fusion' betweenFlemingsandWalloonsregularlysubstitutethewordsofonelanguageforthoseofthe other.ThislinguisticinterferenceevenextendstothespeechofFrancophones,whereitislikely tobedoneforcomiceffect.But,asHugoBaetensBeardsmorehasdemonstrated(1971), FlemishhashadademonstrableinfluenceonthesyntaxofBrusselsFrenchwhetherornotthis influenceisrecognizedbythespeaker.Smallwonderthatintellectualsfrombothlanguage communitieshavetendedtofocusonstandardsoflinguisticcorrectness. 66

 TWOPERSPECTIVESONDUTCHFRENCHLANGUAGECONTACT WhenLudovicoGuicciardini,thefamousItaliantraveler,visitedtheLowCountriesinthe sixteenthcentury,hefoundastonishinglinguisticprowessamongcitizensofthecitiesof Flanders,apopulationwho,inadditiontoFlemish,knewFrench"commelanguematernelle" (Guicciardini[1557]1943:30).Thisimageofaquintessentiallyuniversalandbenevolent bilingualism,andofthepeacefulrelationsthatsuchastateimplies,representsamajorstrandin Belgianhistory.HenriPirenne,forexample,describedBelgiumasamicrocosmofEurope (1928:43),acountrywithoutnaturalfrontierswherepeoplespeaktwolanguages(192232, 1:xi).Pirennedidnotethat"lacivilizationflamande"has"largementbnficidubilinguisme," thatFlemingshadmoreneedtolearnFrenchthanWalloonsfromtheearliestdaysoftheir coexistence(192228,7:384).EventheemergenceofthenineteenthcenturyFlemishMovement, whichhedescribedas"l'agitationsentimentale,"nottobedisassociatedfrom"lesmisresdu proltariat"(192228,7:271),didnotalterhisbeliefinthebenevolenceofbilingualismfor Flemings. Theworldviewoflinguistsintheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcenturyreinforcedthese assumptions.AntoineMeillet,forexample,theorizedtheexistenceoftwokindsoflanguages (MeilletandSauvageot,1934):thosecapableofexpressingthesubtletiesandvaluesofan advancedcivilizationandthoseoutsidethemainstream.Sinceonlyinthemostfortuitous circumstanceisamothertonguelikelytobea"languedecivilisation,"membersofless prestigiouslanguagegroupswhoaspiretobecome"hommesdistingus"mustlearnthelanguage oftheadvancedculture,anditisquitepossiblethattheywillcometopreferthislanguageto theirown."Hommesdistingus,"therefore,mayhaveoneormorelanguageshiftsinalifetimea pointillustratedforBelgium(MeilletandTesnire,1928:294,355)byreferencetothefactthat onesixthofthechildrenbornintoFlemishhomesreplacedtheirmothertonguewithFrenchby thetimetheyreachedadulthood,proofpositiveof"laprpondrancedufranaiscommelangue ducivilisation"andofFlemishas"unelangued'intrtlocal."Notsurprisingly,Flemings concernedaboutlanguagemaintenancefearedbilingualism. HistoriansoftheFlemishMovement(Clough[1930]1968;Elias,1969;Geyl,1952,1955; Picard,194249;Willemsen,1958)havetheirowninterpretationofthehistoryoflanguage contactinBelgium.Asearlyasthesixteenthcentury,FlemingssuchasJacobdeMeyere complainedthattheFrenchlanguagewasmakingsuchgainsinFlemishterritorythatitwould eventuallypushtheTeutonictonguebacktotheRhine(quotedinArmstrong,1965:407408).In thelateeighteenthcentury,aFlemishlawyer,J.B.C.Verlooy,publishedatreatiseonthedecline oftheNetherlandishmothertongueintheLowCountriesinwhichhesingledoutforspecial concernthecorruptionofthatlanguageinBrussels,acityinwhichFlemingssometimes purposelyspoketheirmothertonguebadly 67

inordertogivetheimpressionthattheyhadhadaFrencheducation(Verlooy[1788]1938:2526). Flemishnationalistsandtheirsympathizershaveechoedhiscomplainteversince. Intheirview,theintroductionofFrenchintoFlandersbytheCountofFlanders,avassalofthe FrenchCrown,wasanactoflinguisticimperialismthatwasperpetuatedbyinternational entrepreneurswhosettledinFlemishcitiesinthesixteenthcentury(Wilmars,1968).Theadoption ofFrenchbycertainFlemingsthereafterwasanecessityforsurvival,butanecessitythatcorrupted andimpoverishedthelifeandcultureoftheFlemishpeople.AccordingtotheDutchhistorian, PieterGeyl,thehistoriographyofFrancophonewriterssuchasHenriPirenneisaconscious distortionofhistorywhichemphasizesrelationsacrossthelanguagelinebutignoresnaturalties betweenthenorthernhalfofBelgiumandtheNetherlands(Geyl,1952:4445).Pirennehimself,a WalloonteachinghistoryatthethenFrenchlanguageUniversityofGhent,wasanimperialist occupying"anadvancedpostinthemovementofpenetrationandconquestwhichFrench civilization,undertheauspicesofthecentralizedBelgianstate,wascarryingoninFlanders"(Geyl, 1955:19091). Herethenarethepolarities.AFrancophoneinterpretationofBelgianhistoryhascenteredBelgian identityonatraditionofbenevolentbilingualismbasedonalinguistichierarchywhichassumesthe superiorityofFrenchandevenallowsforlanguageshifttothismorecivilizedtongue.Flemish nationalistshaverejectedthisviewoftheirhistory,pointinginsteadtoFrancophonelinguistic, economic,andpoliticaldominanceasaformofimperialismthathasdebasedandimpoverishedthe Flemishpeople.Bytheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,neithertheynormaverickWalloonslike JulesDestrecouldfindaviablesourceofnationalorpersonalidentityinbilingualism. PATTERNSOFBILINGUALISMINTHEPAST AttheFirstInternationalConferenceonBilingualisminEducation,whichtookplacein Luxembourgin1928,J.E.Verheyen(1929)pointedoutthatamajorityofBelgianswerenot bilingualatall,only13percentofthetotalpopulation,disproportionatelyrepresentedinBrussels, werebilingualatthetimeofthisconference.Inthatcity,41percentofallresidents,and84percent ofFlemishresidents,werebilingual(AnnuaireStatistique,1938:xxii).Belgiumwasabilingual countrybecausemorethanonelanguagegrouplivedwithinit,notbecauseallBelgianswere bilingual.Tounderstandtheurgencybehindthesweepinglanguagereformsinitiatedfouryears laterin1932istounderstandthatbilingualismwasaFlemish,notaWalloon,"problem." InFlanders,themostcommonpatternofbilingualismwasshapedbyFlemingswhousedFrenchfor publiclifeandreservedFlemishforintragroupcontactandthehome.Frenchwasthelanguageof government,business,universities,andsecondaryschools;Flemish,themajoritylanguage, belongedtothecommonpeople."WanneermenalleenVlaamssprak,konmenslechtseen handarbeider 68

zijn"(Wilmars,1968:54).AunilingualFlemingcouldbeonlyaworker.AbilingualFleming,on theotherhand,couldhopetojointheFrancophonepowerelite.Thisbilingualismwithdiglossia existedforcenturiesinFlanders,butthebilingualFlemingpaidapriceperpetuationofaclass structureinwhichlanguagewasthestatusmarker. AdifferentpatternofbilingualismdevelopedinBrussels,ameccaforambitiousFlemingswilling andeagertopaythepriceforsocialandeconomicadvancement."Naturellement,monpreetma mreparlantfranais,enplusduflamand;considrantcelacommeunepromotion,voulurentme donnerl'instructiondanscettelanguesanslaquelle,socialement,rienn'taitpossible,"notesthe sonofaFlemingwhomigratedtoBrussels(Francis,1974:2729),thefirstmemberofhisfamilyto makealivingwiththepeninsteadofonthefarm.("Naturally,myfatherandmother,speaking FrenchmorethanFlemish,consideringthatapromotion,wantedtogivemeaneducationinthat tonguewithoutwhichsociallynothingwaspossible.")InBelgium,Brusselswasthemeltingpot. TheintermixtureofthesebilingualpatternswasuntilrecentlypartofthewarpandwoofofBelgian life.InLamaisonducanal,forexample,anovelbyGeorgesSimenon(1932),theheroineEdme, thedaughterofaFlemingwhohadmigratedtoBrussels,issenttolivewithFlemishrelativesina smallvillageinFlandersafterthedeathofherparents.HeruncleandhissonsallknowFrench, whichtheyuseintheirbusiness,reservingFlemishforhomeandneighborhoodclearevidenceof theirprosperityandupwardsocialmobility.Therearealsounilingualsinthisstory:Edme,who knowsonlyFrench,andherfemalerelatives,whoknowonlyFlemish.ForEdmeunilingualismis evidenceofherprivilegedupbringinginBrusselswhereherparentsspokeFrenchandsheattended aFrenchlanguageschool.Forherauntandfemalecousins,however,unilingualismisevidenceofa limitededucationthatdidnotgobeyondprimarygrades,adiglossicpatternthatshedslighton spheresoflanguageusage(aswellasontheroleofwomeninruralFlandersinthetwentieth century). EinarHaugen(1972:31011)makesadistinctionbetweencomplementarybilingualism,habitual useofasecondlanguageforclearlydefinedfunctions;replacivebilingualism,substitutionofa secondlanguageforone'smothertongue;andsupplementarybilingualism,theuseofasecond languageonanoccasionalbasisoutsideofanormalroutine.Acentralthemeinthe Belgianlanguagecontroversyisnotthenecessityforlearningasecondlanguage,althoughthereis considerableresistancetolearningDutchamongsomeWalloons.Theissueisthekindof bilingualismtosupport.ComplementarybilingualismconnotesasocialframeworkinwhichFrench istheelitelanguage.ReplacivebilingualismmeansgradualextinctionofaFlemishidentitygroup. ThegoaloflanguageplanninginBelgium,therefore,istoeducateformothertonguedominance andforsupplementarybilingualisminschoolsradicallydifferentfromthosethatexistedinthepast. 69

THEWAXINGANDWANINGOFBILINGUALSCHOOLS Belgiumhashadbilingualschoolsthroughoutrecordedhistory(Swing,1980:2951).Latin schoolsdatefromtheMiddleAges,andvernacularschools,whereambitiousFlemingslearned French,fromtheRenaissance(Counson,1922;Guicciardini[1567]1943:57;Serrure,185960). ButitwasnotuntilNapoleonattemptedtomakeFrenchthelanguageofinstructioninschools throughouthisrealmthatlanguagebecamethedominantpoliticalissuethatitstillistoday. WilliamoftheNetherlands,theforeignruler(181530)whofollowedNapoleon,alsoviewed education,politicalrule,andlanguageasintertwined.However,hisattemptstoimposetheDutch languageonthegovernmentofBelgiumandonitsschoolsweresounpopularthathispolicies hastenedtheadventofthesocalledbourgeoisrevolutionwhichusheredintheindependenceof Belgium.ThattheFrancophoneleaderswholedthisrevoltin1830madeasovertauseofFrench asatoolfordominationastheirpredecessorhadofDutchsuggestshowwelltheyhad internalizedtheinstrumentaluseoflanguage. Article23ofthefirstBelgianConstitutionguaranteedlinguisticfreedomineducation.Before theConstitutionwasevencompleted,however,aprovisionalgovernmenthadmadeabasic decisionaboutthelanguageofofficialdocuments.ThatlanguagecouldonlybeFrench,forno standardexistedforthemanydialectsofFlemishandGermaninuseincertainlocalities (Vanderkerckove,1969:7).Oneofthefirstactionsofthenewgovernment,therefore,was curtailmentofthespecialDutchcourseinstitutedintheschoolsbyWilliamoftheNetherlands. Hereinafter,schoolswouldusethelanguagebestsuitedtotheneedsoftheirstudents(Juste, 1844:332);thelanguageofgreatestutilitywasFrench.Afewelementaryschoolsinruralareas ofFlandersandworkingclassdistrictsofBrusselscontinuedtouseFlemishasthelanguageof instruction,butinmostschoolsFlemingshadnoalternativetoaFrenchlanguagecurriculum. FrenchwaseventhemediumofinstructionforeveningcoursesattheIndustrialSchoolin Ghentilea,ashortlivedexperimentthatfailed(Nrum,1838:14344,15456). InBrusselsacuriousbyproductofthispolicyofbilingualeducationbysubmersionisrevealedin thecensusofbilingualsfromtheyears1866and1880.(Noearliercensusfiguresforbilinguals areavailable.)Between1866and1880,thepercentageofbilingualsdeclinedfrom32to23,but thisdeclinewasnotaccompaniedbyanincreaseinthenumberofunilingualFrancophones,the goaloftheassimilationisteducationalpolicies.ThepercentageofunilingualFrancophones increasedbyonlyIpercentfrom17percentto18percentwhereasthepercentageofunilingual Flemingsrosefrom51percentto59percent[Table4.1].Itispossiblethatthemigrationoflarge numbersofsemiliterateruralFlemingstoBrusselsduringtheseyears(Boon,1969:419)may haveskewedtheoutcome,butitisalsoclearthatschoolswerenotturninglargenumbersof FlemingsintoFrancophones,eventhoughitwaspublicpolicytodoso.Schoolswerenoteven doinganadequatejobteachingFlemingstherudimentsofliteracy.Bythe1870s,educatorssuch asCharlesBulsandAlexisSluys(Sluys,1939:29), 70

 Table4.1 UnilingualFrench,UnilingualFemish,andBilingualPopulationofBrussels,1866to1880 Unilingual Year Popula tion French Percent age Unilingual Popula tion Flemish Percent age BilingualFrenchand Flemish Popula tion Percent age

1866 64,164 17% 205,645 51% 111,338 32% 1880 105,346 18% 338,821 59% 130,164 23% SOURCE:AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgique33(1903).Bruxelles:J.B.Stevens,p.83. Percentagesarederivedfromthepopulationinthe FrenchFlemishlanguagegroups,notfromthetotalpopulation,which Includedaverysmallgroupwhoknewneitherlanguage. concernedaboutthehighilliteracyrateamongstudentstaughttoreadwhattheydidnot understand,werereadytoexperimentwithadifferentcurriculumdesign. ThedualmediumschoolswhichproliferatedinBrusselsandothercitiesnorthofthelanguage lineduringthelastquarterofthenineteenthcenturywereadirectresponsetothisconcern,a reformwidelyhailedbyeducatorsandFlemishnationalistsalike.Theavailabilityofparallel FrenchandDutchclassesdidnot,however,heraldthedemiseofaunilingualFrenchlanguage curriculumforFlemings.ManycommunalandmostCatholicschoolsneveradoptedadual mediumpattern,andevenwhereanalternativewasavailable,Flemishparentscontinuedtoenroll theirchildreninFrenchschools.Dualmediumschools,moreover,offeredatbesttransitional bilingualeducation.ThatthoseFlemishstudentswhostayedinschooljoinedtheFrench languagemainstreambythethirdorfourthyear(Verheyen,1929)wastobeexpectedinasociety inwhichFrenchwasthelanguageofsecondaryschoolsandhighereducation.True,some secondaryschoolsinFlandersofferedcertainsubjectsinDutch,butsecondaryschoolsin BrusselsremainedFrench. Nevertheless,thesedualmediumschoolsestablishedBelgiumasaworldcenterforbilingual education,attractingmanyforeignvisitors,someofwhom(Dawes,1902)optimistically predictedincreasedbilingualismamongbothFlemingsandFrancophonesasaresultofthis patternofeducation.Whatwasnotrecognizedatfirst,however,butwhatsoonbecameapparent wasthatdualmediumschoolsdidnoteducateforastablebilingualism.BeforeWorldWarI,the numberofbilingualsinBrusselsdidincrease,testimonyperhapstotheefficacyofthedual mediumcurriculumineasingthetransitiontoFrench(Table4.2).Thereafter,however,the bilingualsegmentoftheBrusselspopulationbeganslowlytodecline:from50percentin1910to 41percentin1930.Thisdecline,moreover,wasaccompaniedbyasharpriseinthenumberof unilingualFrancophones:18 71

Table4.2 UnilingualFrench,UnilingualFlemish,andBilingualPopulationofBrussels,1880to1930 Unilingual Year Popula tion French Percent age Unilingual Popula tion Flemish Percent age BilingualFrenchand Flemish Popula tion Percent age

1880 105,346 18% 338,821 59% 130,164 23% 1890 112,402 16% 326,114 47% 258,677 37% 1900 144,723 19% 340,653 44% 294,901 38% 1910 205,217 27% 173,450 23% 372,193 50% 1920 253,226 34% 124,194 17% 371,012 49% 1930 326,929 43% 118,501 16% 308,414 41% SOURCE:AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgique33(1903).Bruxelles:J.B.Stevens,p.83. AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgiqueetduCongo Belgique44(1914).Bruxelles:A.Lesigne.p.89).AnnuaireStatis tiquedelaBelgiqueetduCongoBelge58(1935).Gand:Vanderpoorten.p.32. percentin1880,27percentin1910,34percentin1920,43percentin1930;andadecreaseinthe numberofunilingualFlemings:59percentin1880,16percentin1930.WerebilingualFlemings rearingunilingualFrancophonechildren?Itispossibletoaccountforthislanguageshiftfrom anyothersegmentofthepopulation.Anincreaseinbilingualism(amongFlemings)precededa clearlyarticulatedlanguageshift. Giventhisreality,itisnotdifficulttoseewhyFlemishnationalistscametoviewBrusselsasa cityofuniquetemptationswhereametamorphosisfrombilingualFlemingtounilingual Francophonecouldtakeplaceintwoorthreegenerations,andthecurriculumoftheschoolsof Brusselsasaonewayroadtounilingualism.Flemishnationalistshadmanycomplaintsaboutthe schoolstheirchildrenattended:thestigmaattachedtoassignmenttoaFlemishregime(Cneudt, 1918:30);theshortageoftrainedFlemishteachers(Segers,1907:37);thereluctanceof communalauthoritiestocreateFlemishclasses(Toussaint,1935:40).Theseschoolsnotonly transmittedanegativemessageabouttheNetherlandiclanguageandculture;inacceleratinga languageshift,theyalienatedchildrenfromtheirparents,"denationalizing"themtouseaword thatappearedoverandoverinthepolemicsofthelanguagecontroversy(Wezemael,1937). AccelerationofthelanguageshiftinBrusselswasamajorreasonforrejectionofbilingualismin educationinBelgium,butanotherissuewasalsogermane:theperceivedrelationshipbetween bilingualismandcognition.AttheFirstIn 72

ternationalConferenceonBilingualisminEducationin1928,allthreeofthepapersgivenby BelgiansfocusedonthehighrateoffailureamongFlemings.OvidDeCrolyadvancedanargument whosetimehadnotyetcome:thatfailureinschoolamongFlemingsshouldbecorrelatedwithlow socioeconomicbackground(DeCroly,1929:5361).Histwocolleagues,however,lookedfora differentexplanation.BothJ.E.Verheyen(1929:13745)andNicolasToussaint(1929:14656)had madeempiricalstudiescomparingbilingualswithunilinguals,andonthebasisoftheirresearch concludedthatFlemingshaddifficultyinschoolbecausebilingualisminhibitedintellectual development.Ifthisweretrue,andmanyBelgianeducatorsofthaterawereconvincedthatitwas, thereweresoundpedagogicalaswellaspoliticalreasonstorejectthebilingualeducationalpatterns thathadexistedinthepast,whetherinunilingualFrenchschoolsattendedbyFlemingsorindual mediumschools. EDUCATIONFORSEPARATISM ThatlanguagehadbecomethecentralissueinBelgianlifebythemidtwentiethcenturyreflects boththegrowingpowerofFlemishnationalistsandthepotencyofthesingularmystiquethey espoused,amystiquefarfromuniquetoBelgium(Gillouin,1930),butneverthelesswellnurtured there."Languageisthemostimportantcharacteristicofapeople"("Hetvoornaamstekenmerkvan eenvolkiszijnetaal"),statesanineteenthcenturyFlemishnationalistslogan(Temmerman, 1898:5)."Cultureisalmostalwayslanguage,"concludestheFinalReportoftheHarmelCenter (Centrederecherche#32,ca.1950:1).But"language"inthiscontextisnota"languageof civilization."Itisthemothertongue.ThatinBelgiummothertonguewouldbecomealegalconcept onlyinBrusselswhile"territoriallanguage"(landstaal)wouldbecomethelegalbasisforschools andotherinstitutionsinFlandersandWalloniaarefurtherexamplesoftheparadoxesunderlying languageplanninginthiscomplexBabel. TheLanguageLawof1932,whichsetthelinguisticpatternfortherestofthetwentiethcentury, calledfortheuseoftheterritoriallanguageasamediumofinstructioninFlandersandWallonia,for themothertongueorusuallanguageinBrussels.Dualmediumschoolsweretobephasedout exceptinFlanderswheretransmutationclasseswouldeasethetransitionfromFrenchtoDutch. Secondlanguagestudywouldbemandatory,butonlyinthemodernlanguageclassroom,andnot untilafterthefifthyearofschoolwhenthemothertonguewasfirmlyestablished.ThatFrench languageschoolscontinuedtoexistinFlanders(EuropeanCourtofHumanRights,196768),that FlemishfamiliescontinuedtochooseFrenchoverDutchasalanguageofinstructioninthenation's capital(Vansiliette,ca.1950),thattransmutationclassesbecameameansforevadingDutch languageeducation(TransmutatieKlassen,1956),thatdualmediumschoolsdidnotfullydiein Brussels(Ministredel'InstructionPublique,1953)allaretestimonytotheproblemsinherentin implementingsuchablueprint.Butthatoutlawingbilingualismineducationbegantohavean impactwe 73

canhavenodoubt.EvenbeforepassageofthemorestringentLanguageLawof1963,thereexisteda generationofFlemingseducatedfromprimaryschoolthroughuniversityintheirmothertongue. EducationinmodernBelgiumstillreflectsthisbasicdesign:theprincipleoflinguisticterritoriality inFlandersandWallonia,whereonlythelegallanguageDutchinthenorth,Frenchinthesouth maybethelanguageofeducation;theprincipleofpersonalityinbilingualBrussels,wheremother tongueisthedeterminant.Butthisorganizationisnowfarmoretotalthanitsarchetypeinthe 1930s.TheLanguageLawof1932hadallowedminoritiesinFlandersorWalloniatobeginschool intheirmothertongueintransmutationclasses.TheLawofJuly30,1963,mandatedtotal hegemonyoftheregionallanguage,asituationthatledanumberofFrancophoneparentsin FlanderstoseekaredressoftheirgrievancesattheCourtofHumanRightsinStrasbourg(Courtof HumanRights,196667),acasetheylost.TheLawofJuly15,1932,hadpermittedFlemingsand FrancophonestocoexistwithinthesameschoolinBrussels,sometimesevenwithinthesameclass whereateachertaughtfirstinonelanguageandthenintheother.Indeed,afewofthese"bilingual classes"existedaslateas1962(BulletinCommunal,1962:407).TheLanguageLawof1963not onlysplitsuchschoolsintoseparatelinguisticregimes,separatelyadministered,butitalso empoweredalinguisticinspectoratetodeterminewhetherthemothertonguecoincidedwiththe languageoftheschool(LawofJuly30,1963,Article17,18.ArrtNovember30,1966).By1971, therightofparentstoselectthelanguageoftheirchildren'seducation(libertdupredefamille) waspartiallyrestoredinBrussels,butintheyearsbetween1966whenthelawwasfirstrigidly implementedand1971,theparentsofbilingualchildreninBrusselsweresorelytried. Universitieswerenotincludedinthe1963legislation,buttheyhavealsocometoreflectitsdesign. ThestateuniversityofLiege(French)andGhent(Dutchsince1930)havecomplementedone anotherforhalfacentury,andtheyarenowbalancedbytheneweruniversitiesofMonsHainaut (French)andAntwerp(Dutch).Asourceofconsiderablecontentionwasthescissionoftheprivate universities,theUniversityofLouvain(Catholic)andtheUniversityofBrussels(freethinking).In 1968,riotsinLouvainledtothedownfallofthegovernmentofPremierVandenBoeynants,andtoa decisiontomovetheentireFrenchlanguagefacultyofthisancientuniversityfromFlemishsoilto LouvainlaNeuveinWallonia.Shortlythereafter,in1969,theUniversityofBrusselsdivided, becomingtheVrijeUniversiteitteBrusselandtheUniversiteLibredeBruxelles(Dejeanand Binnemans,1971;"Leddoublement,"1969). Exceptforafewinternationalschools,afewschoolsrunbythemilitary,andoccasionalafterschool communityclassesforthechildrenofmigrants,alleducationinBelgiumnowtakesplacein separateschoolsinthelanguageoftheseparatelinguisticcommunities.Thisisabilateraldesign, eachcommunityamirrorimageoftheother,butbasictoitisthescissionthatmakesthecomple 74

mentaryimagespossible.SubterfugessuchasthebuildingofawallbetweenDutchandFrench sectionsofaschoolinordertoretainsubsidieshavelongpassed.DutchFrenchduallanguage schoolsnolongerexist,althoughtherearedualmedium(FrenchGerman)schoolsinthe Germanlanguagearea.Schoolsmaynotevenemployateacherwhodidnotreceivehisorher diplomainthelanguageofthelinguisticcommunitytowhichtheschoolbelongsunlessthe teacherhaspassedaspecialexaminationbeforeastateboard(LawofJuly30,1963,Articles13, 14,15).By1969,thereweretwoministriesofeducation,oneforDutchandtheotherforFrench schools.By1971,twosemiautonomousCulturalCouncils,oneDutch,oneFrench,tookover responsibilityforministeringtotheeducational,social,andculturalneedsofFlemingsand Walloons.AsimilarcounselwasalsocreatedfortheGermanlanguagecommunityandwould begintotakechargeofGermanlanguageeducationin1983(BrassineandKreins,1984). Educationforseparatismisnowcomplete. Nevertheless,thedesignisnotwithoutitsinternalinconsistencies.Thattherevisedconstitution of1971providesallBelgians,includingcitizensofthebilingualcapital,withmembershipinone ortheotherofthreesemiautonomouscommunitiesoneFrench,oneDutch,oneGerman,each administeredbyitsownCulturalCouncilimpliesthatlanguagedeterminesculturalidentity (Article3C).Butthatthisconstitutionalsorecognizesfourgeographicalregionsaslanguage zonesDutch,French,German,plusbilingualBrusselsimpliesthatexceptinBrusselslanguage isafunctionofgeography(Article3B).InBrussels,thechoiceofaneducationalregimeisnow largelyamatterofselfdefinition,virtuallyafreechoicesince1971,providedthatparentscan provetheirresidencewithinthecity(LawofJuly26,1971,Article88).Intheunilingual territories,ontheotherhand,assimilationoflinguisticminoritiescontinuestobethepolicy,and exceptincertainvillagesonthenowimmovablelanguagelinethereexistsnolegalalternativeto educationintheregionallanguageexceptforthechildtoenrollinaschoolinadifferent linguisticzone.Thisdistinctionbetweenterritorialandindividualidentityisparticularly importantforFrancophoneslivinginFlemishvillagesontheBrusselsperimeter.Eventhose livingincommuneswithlimitedFrenchlanguage"facilities"(communesfacilits)eyethe freedomnowenjoyedbytheFrenchlanguagecommunityinBrusselswithenvy. Thereisafurtherparadoxhere.InBrussels,thestudyofFrenchinschoolsintheDutchregime andofDutchinschoolsintheFrenchregimemaynowbeginasearlyasfirstgrade(LawofJuly 27,1971).Intheunilingualterritories,however,secondlanguagestudymaynotbeginbeforethe fifthyear,andthen,undercertaincircumstances,anothermodernlanguagemaybesubstituted. Nevertheless,membersofbothcommunitiesappeartohavesignaledrecognitionofdejure linguisticparity.AleadingFrancophonenewspaperevenpublishedaneditorialcallingfor improvementinthequalityofDutchclassesinFrenchschoolsbecauseFrancophonechildren mustcompetewithbilingualFlemingsforgovernmentjobs(LeSoir,July19,1979). Competitionexistsbetweenthe 75

FrenchandDutchregimesinBrusselsforstudentsandresources,butdebateoverthe democratizationofthelinguistichierarchyisoveratleastonapolicylevel. ISSUESINTHE1980s ThatachievementofdejurelinguisticequalityhasnotproducedlinguisticpeaceinBelgiumshould surprisefewobserversofthisbeleagueredsocietyinwhichsymphonyorchestras,televisionand radiostations,libraries,athleticleagues,aswellasschools,areallconductedintheofficial languagesofthediscretelinguisticcommunitiestowhichtheybelong.Andthetendencyistoward moresegmentation,moreseparatism.TheGermanLanguageCommunity,forexample,a communitynotrecognizedinHarmelCenterresearchandgivenonlyconsultativepowerinthe revisedConstitution,nowhasthepowertodevelopandgenerateitsowninstitutions(Brassineand Kreins,1984),andincreasedpoweroveritsschools,originallyundertheexclusiveprovinceofthe FrenchMinistryofEducation.Whatthisnewautonomywillmeanforthesixtyfivethousand GermanspeakingBelgiansisnotyetclear,althoughthefactthattheylivewithinclearlydefined bordersthatdonotcontainanofficialbilingualarealikeBrusselscouldmakeadifference. Thiscentrifugalimpulseisevenmorenotableinthelargerlanguagecommunities.By1973, FlandershadcompletedanagreementwiththeNetherlands(Govaert,1982),whichlaterextended toagreementsbetweentheBelgianNetherlandishMinisterofEducationandtheDutchMinisterof EducationandCulture,andwhichincludedprovisionsforapermanentcommissiontomeetthree timesayear,alternatelyinBrusselsandtheHague.ThatFlandersactingunilaterallycouldconclude anaccordonscholastic,scientific,andartisticmatterswithanindependentforeignpowerwith whomitsharesacommonlanguageisevidenceindeedthatethnolinguisticidentity,not bilingualism,hasbecomethecenterofindividualreferenceinmodernBelgium. Nevertheless,defactobilingualareasstillremain,andinthemtheproblemsattendantwhen competinglanguagesareincontact.WehavealreadynotedthedifficultiesfacedbyLucandhis motherinBrusselswhenrigidapplicationoflanguagelegislationwasappliedtothem.With resolutionofthatparticularissue,thecenterofconflicthasnowshiftedawayfromBrusselstothe periphery,particularlytothepredominantlyFrancophonevillagesinFlemishterritorywhich surroundBrussels.Sixofthesevillages(communesfacilits)havespecialprovisionsforlinguistic "minorities,"butapplicationoftheseprovisionshasledtoconsiderabletension(LeSoir,February 24,1979).FrancophonesarguethattheirculturalcommunityshouldcontrolallFrenchlanguage education.Flemingsinsistoncontrollingallschoolswithintheboundariesoftheirgeographical territory. EquallycontentiousareareassuchastheCominesandtheFourons,placesofunrestsincethe freezingofthelanguagelinein1962.IntheFourons(Hermans 76

Table4.3 ProportionofNeerlandophoneandFrancophoneStudentsintheFourons,1961to1982 6162 7171 7677 7980 8182 Dutch 408(64%) 316(44%) 229(42%) 181(38%) 197(46%) Sector French 231(36%) 395(56%) 316(58%) 293(62%) 230(53%) Sector Total 639 711 545 474 428 SOURCE:"Commissariatd'arrondissmentadjointpourFouron".In CourrierHebdomadaireduCRISP,1019(2decembre1983),p.14. andVerjans,1983),forexample,aregionthatisnowpartoftheProvinceofLimburgbutwas formerlypartoftheProvinceofLiege,FlemingsseektosuppressfacilitiesforFrancophonesand haveclosedtheFrenchlanguageschool.EnrollmentintheDutchlanguageschoolshasshowna minorincreaserecently(Table4.3),butisstillwellbelowthe64percentitrepresentedin1961,a matterofsmallcomforttocertainradicalFlemings.Weekendriotsarecommonplaceinthearea. Francophones,meanwhile,areamajorityinapopulationinwhichFlemingsdonotgobelow30 percent.Thewarisfarfromover. Anotherlanguageissuedeservesmention.LikeotherWesternEuropeancountries,Belgiumhashad difficultycomingtogripswiththemulticulturalnatureofthepopulationthatliveswithinits borders.TherearenearlyninehundredthousandmigrantworkersinBelgium(Bastenierand Dassetto,1981),closetohalfinthecoalmineareasofWalloniaandtherestalmostequally distributedbetweenBrusselsandFlanders.Mostoftheseworkersare"migrant"innameonly.They havecometoBelgiumtostay.ThechallengetheyposetoBelgianschoolsisconsiderable,apoint thatbecomesallthemoreapparentwhenthehighbirthrateofthispopulationistakenintoaccount (9.5birthsper100femalesintheimmigrantpopulationversus7intheBelgianfemalepopulation), anditsyouth(49.8percentareundertwentyfiveyearsofage,afigurethattranslatesinto32percent ofthepopulationofBrussels,16.8percentofWallonia,and5.3percentofFlanders)(Bastenierand Dassetto,1981). Untilrecently,littleattemptwasmadetoprovideforthespecialneedsoftheseimmigrantgroups. Childrenattendedschoolswhich,becauseoftherigidityofBelgium'slanguagelaws,assumedthat eitherDutchorFrenchwasthelanguageofthehome,animpossiblesituationinanumberof schools.InBrussels,thereareninetyfiveschoolswithmoreMoroccanstudentsthanBelgian; twentyoneschoolswhereimmigrantchildrencomprise90percentofthepopulation;twentyschools withover80percent;twentyfiveschoolswithover70percent 77

Table4.4 ChokeofaSecondLanguageintheDutchandFrenchSector Dutch French English German None Frenchsector 57.9% 36.2% 3.3% 2.6% Dutchsector 90.7% 9.3% SOURCE:CourrierHebdomadaireduCRISP10261027(20janvier 1984). (Roosens,1981).SomesupplementaryinstructioninFrenchorDutchisavailable,butlittle instructioninthenativelanguagesofthesestudentswasevenconsidered,asidefromafewafter schoolclassesrunbytheimmigrantgroupsthemselvesortheirembassies,untilpassageofthe EuropeanEconomicDirectiveof1977ontheeducationofthechildrenofmigrantworkersin theirmothertongue.ThatextranationalpressurebothfromtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity( Balsa,1984)andfromtheCouncilofEurope(Conseildel'Europe,1983)forintensificationof thefewmothertongueprogramsthatnowexistshouldcollidewithBelgium'slanguagelawsis anareaforfurtherresearch. ChallengetoBelgium'slinguisticbalancecomesfromanotherdirection.Thepresentlanguage structureispredicatedontheassumptionthatallBelgianswillbeeducatedfordominancein FrenchorDutch(dominanceinGermanisarecentanduntriedphenomenon)andfor supplementarycompetencyinthesecondnationallanguage.ExceptinBrusselswherestudyof thesecondnationallanguageismandatory,provisionsdoexistforthesubstitutionofamodern languageotherthanDutchorFrenchundercertaincircumstances.Recently,anumberofparents havebeguntoexercisethisoption.InWallonia,36.2percentofstudentsnowchooseEnglish insteadofDutchasasecondlanguage(BaetenandVerdoodt,1984),alargeenoughgroupto havearealimpactonthebilateraldesignimplicitinthelanguagelegislation.EveninFlanders amongstudentswhohavetraditionallysoughtoutinstructioninFrench,9.3percentareselecting English(Table4.4).SecondaryanduniversitystudentsnowrankEnglishasthemostimportant modernlanguage,althoughforFlemingsittieswithFrench(Table4.5).ThespreadofEnglish concernsbothFlemings,forwhomanotherlanguageofwidercommunicationhasbegunto challengehardwongains,andFrancophones,forwhomtheunthinkablehasbeguntohappen: thepossibilitythatEnglishmayreplaceFrenchasthelanguageofEuropeaninstitutionssuchas Benelux(Grve,1980).Theachievementofalinguisticbalanceisatbestephemeral. CONCLUSIONS Althoughitisdangeroustogeneralizeaboutasubjectascomplexastherelationshipbetween bilingualismandlinguisticseparatisminBelgium,four 78

Table4.5 ImportanceofModernLanguages Secondary Students Francophones German Dutch English Neerlandophones German French English
*Tie.

University Students

Workers (Public Service) 3 1 2 3 1 2

Workers (Private Enterprise) 3 2 1 3 1 2

3 2 1 3
*1 *1

3 2 1 3 2 1

SOURCE:CourrierHebdomadaireduCRISP10261027(20janvier 1984),p34. lessonscanbederivedfromthisexaminationofthetransformationofBelgianschoolsfromtheir roleasanagencyforacculturationtoaFrancophonenationalethostotheirroleasanagencyfor acculturationtolinguisticethnicity. LessonOne:Dualmediumschoolsdonotnecessarilyleadtolanguagemaintenance. Insocietieswherelanguagesareincompetition,adominantlanguagegroupwillnotreadily acceptapatternofeducationwhichdiminishesitshegemony.Forsuchagroup,adualmedium curriculumservesanecessaryfunction.Suchacurriculumlookslikeaconcessiontothe demandsofthe"disadvantaged,"butitactuallyfavorsrapidtransitiontothedominantlanguage. RecognitionofthisfactusheredintheageoflinguisticseparatisminBelgianschools. LessonTwo:Democratizationofalinguistichierarchyislikelytobringdemandsfor separatelinguisticstructures. TheemergenceofseparatisteducationalstructuresinBelgiumwasabyproductoftheemergence ofFlemingsasasocial,economic,andpoliticalforcetobereckonedwith,butthesocial, economic,andpoliticalemergenceofFlemingsalsocoincidedwiththeirespousalofamother tonguemystique.Theirinsistenceonalinguisticandethnicidentityequalindignitytothatof Francophoneswasalogicalpreambletotheemergenceofseparateschoolstructuresthatwould nurturethisidentity.WemaygrantthattheexistenceofFlanders,alinguistichomelandinwhich Flemingswereinthemajority,providedafavorablereinforcementforseparatistsinthecapital city.Nevertheless,inanysituationinwhichlanguagesareincompetitiontheendangeredgroup maydecidetopull 79

awayfromthemainstream,togarneritsstrengths,todefenditsyoungfromtheblandishmentsof assimilation,andtoprepareforanassertionofitsrighttoaviableseparateexistence. LessonThree:Democratizationoflinguisticfunctionbringschangeinthekindofbilingualism foundinasocietywherelanguagesareincontact. Inasocietywherelanguagesservedifferentiatedfunctions,thelanguageofthedominantgroupis likelytohavegreatervalue.Itis,ofcourse,possibletoarguethatacceptanceofonelanguagefor publiclife,anotherforprivate,neednotconnoteavaluesystemthatdebasesthemothertongueof thesubordinategroup,butthechildwhoneverhearshisorherlanguageinaclassroom,whois forbiddentouseamothertongueontheplayground,whomustlearnasecondlanguagetoapplyfor ajobortofilloutalegalformisnotlikelytoconsidertheforbiddenlanguageahiddentreasure. Beliefinthevalueofthemothertongue,ontheotherhand,carrieswithitadesiretousethe heretoforedespisedlanguageforpublicfunctionswhereitwaspreviouslynotused.Witnessthe prouduseofDutchontheflooroftheBelgianParliamentbyFlemingsperfectlyabletomaketheir speechesinFrench. LessonFour:Linguisticequilibriumisatbestephemeralinasocietywherelanguagesarein contact. LanguageplanninginmodernBelgiumstartedwiththeoutlawingof"bilingualismineducation" andhasledtoacompleterestructuringofwhatwasonceaunitarynationstate.Thatthiscentrifugal evolutionhasproducedfragmentationatthepriceofonlypartiallinguisticstabilityisarealityina countrywherecontactonthelanguagelineremainstense,whereprovisionsfortheeducationof immigrantchildrenmaybeinconflictwithnationallaw,wherethespreadofalanguagesuchas Englishloomsasathreat.ItisthejuxtapositionofthisinstabilitywithBelgium'spositionasan internationalcapitalthatsurprises,butthensodoesthefactofthelinguisticrevolutionthathas alreadytakenplace. BIBLIOGRAPHY AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgique33.1903.Brussels:J.B.Stevens. AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgiqueetduCongoBelge44.1914.Brussels:A.Lesigne. 58.1958.Gand:Vanderpoorten. AnnuaireStatistiquedelaBelgique100.1980.Brussels:InstitutNationaldeStatistique. ArmstrongC.A.1965."TheLanguageQuestionintheLowCountries:TheUseofFrenchand DutchbytheDukesofBurgundyandTheirAdministration."InEuropeandtheLateMiddleAges, ed.E.R.Halesetal.Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversity,pp.387409. BaetenR.,andA.Verdoodt.1984."Lesbesoinsenlanguesmodernes/trangresenBelgiqueetleur enseignement."CourrierHebdomadaireduCRISP,10261027. BaetensBeardsmoreH.1971.LefranaisrgionaldeBruxelles.InstitutdePhontique,Confrence etTravaux.Vol.3.Brussels:PressesUniversitairesdeBruxelles. 80

BalsaC.M.1984."LescommunautstrangresenBelgique.Lestatutetlesfonctionsde l'enseignmentdeslanguesetdescultures."RevuedelaDirectionGnraledel'Organisationdes Etudes19,1(January1984):1124. BastenierA.,andF.Dassetto.1981."Ladeuximegnrationd'immigrsenBelgique."Courrier HebdomadaireduCRISP,907908(January23). BoelenS.S.H.M.(1972)."DenederlandsetaalinVlaanderen."InTaalofTalltje,ed.Guido Gaerts.Leuven:Acco. BoonH.1969.Enseignementprimaireetalphabtisationdansl'agglomerationdeBruxellesde 18301879.Louvain:PublicationsUniversitairesdeLouvain. BrassineJ.,andY.Kreins.1984."Larformedel'Etatetlacommunautgermanophone." CourrierHebdomadaireduCRISP,10281029(February10). Bulletincommunal,rapportannuel(1962).ArchivesdelavilledeBruxelles. BustamanteH.,M.vanOverbeke,andA.Verdoodt.1978."BilingualEducationinBelgium."In CaseStudiesinBilingualEducation,eds.B.SpolskyandR.L.Cooper.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. Centrederecherchepourlasolutionnationaledesproblmessociaux,politiquesetjuridiques enregionswallonnesetflamandes.194854.326typewrittendocuments.(HarmelCenter.) CloughS.B.(1930)1968.AHistoryoftheFlemishMovement.AStudyinNationalism.New York:OctagonBooks. CneudtR.de.1918.DevervlaamschingvanhetlageronderwijsingrootBrussel.Brussels:A Hessens. CohenG.1905."Leparlerbelge."RapportprsentauCongrspourl'extensionetlaculturede lalanguefranaise.Lige(September1013).ReprintedinSkandinaviskWnadsrevy9(April 1906):16368. Conseildel'Europe.1983."Symposiumsurlaformationinitialeetcontinudesenseignantsde languesvivantes."(Conclusionsetrecommandations.)RevuedelaDirectionGnralede l'OrganisationdesEtudes18,10(December):512. CounsonA.1922."LefranaisenBelgiqueetlescoleswallonnesl'poquedela Renaissance."MilangesG.Lanson.Paris:Hachette. DaumontF.1911.Lemouvementflamand.2vols.Brussels:SocietdBelgedeLibrairie. DawesT.R.1902.BilingualTeachinginBelgianSchools.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. DeCrolyOvid.1929."Rflexionsetenqutesproposdubilinguisme."Lebilinguismeet l'ducation.TravauxdelaconfrenceinternationaltenueLuxembourgdu2au5avril1928.

Geneva:BureauInternationald'Education,pp.5361. "Leddoublementlinguistiquedel'UniversitdeBruxelles."1969.CourrierHebdomadairedu CRISP,nos.458,463. DejeanC.,andCL.Binnemans.1971.Universitbelge:dupariaudfi.Brussels:Editionsde l'InstitutdeSociologie.UniversitlibredeBruxelles. DestreeJ.(1912)1968.LalettreauRoisurlasparationdelaWallonieetdelaFlandre. Gembloux:WallonieLibre. DhondtJ.1947."Essaisurl'originedelafrontirelinguistique."InL'AntiquitClassique 16:26186. Dossier5/68/CP."BestsuurGerneenschappelijkeDienstenvoorNationaleOpvoedingen NederlandseCultuurTaalinspectie." DrayeH.1942.DestudievandeVlaamschWaalschetaalgrenslijninBelgie.Brussels: StandaardBoekhandel. 81

EliasH.J.1969.VijfentwintigjaarVlaamsebeweging,19141939.4vols.Antwerp:Der NederlandscheBoekhandel. EuropeanCourtofHumanRights.196768.CaseRelatingtoCertainAspectsoftheLawsonthe UseofLanguageinBelgium.2vols.Strasbourg:RegistryoftheCourt,CouncilofEurope. FrancisJ.1974.LettreouvertetroismillionscentquatrevingtcentdixhuitWallons.Brussels: Musin. GeylPieter.1952.FromRanketoToynbee:FiveLecturesonHistoriansandHistoriological Problems.SmithCollegeStudiesinHistory,Vol.39.Northampton,Mass.:SmithCollege. .1955.DebateswithHistorians.London:B.T.Barsford. GillouinR.1930.Del'AlsacelaFlandre:lemysticismelinguistique.Paris:Editions Promethee. GovaertS.1982."Laflandreetlespaysbas:rapportsnouveaux."CourrierHebdomadairedu CRISP,960961(April30). GrveM.de.1980."LefranaisauBenelux."LeSoir(March8),p.1. GuicciardiniL.(1567)1943.Belgique1567.Eds.PaulCiseletandMarieDelcourt.Brussels: OfficedePublicit. HanseJ.,A.Doppagne,andH.BourgeoisGielen.1974.Nouvellechasseauxbelgicismes. Brussels:CharlesPlisnier. HaugenH.1972.TheEcologyofLanguage.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress. HermansM.,andP.Verjans.1983."Lesoriginesdelaquerellefouronnaise."Courrier HebdomadaireduCRISP,1019(December2). ILEA(InnerLondonEducationAuthority).1982.1981LanguageCensus.RS811/82. JusteT.1844.Essaisurl'histoiredel'instructionpubliqueenBelgiquedepuislestempslesplus reculsjusqu'nosjours.Brussels:LibrairieNationale. KurthG.189698.LafrontirelinguistiqueenBelgiqueetdanslenorddelaFrance.2vols. Brussels:SocitBelgedeLibrairie. LeenenJ.,andR.Clayes.1972."DenederlandsetaalinVlaanderen."InTaalofTaaltje?,ed. GuidoGeerts.Leuven:Acco. MeilletA.,andA.Sauvageot.1934."Lebilinguismedeshommescultivs."Confrencede l'InstitutdeLinguistique.Paris. MeilletA.,andL.Tesnire.1928.Leslanguesdansl'Europenouvelle.Paris:Payot.

Ministredel'InstructionPublique.1953.RapportTriennal19481950.Brussels:Ministrede l'InstructionPublique. NrumC.J.van.1838.Essaisurl'instructionprimaireetenparticuliersurlesecolesgratuites deGand.Gand:AnnootBraeckman. OlyffF.194044.LaquestiondeslanguesenBelgique:Etudehistoriquelarecherched'une solutionsaineetdfinitive.Hasselt:LesEditionsduMoulin. OmbiauxM.des.1920.Psychologied'unecapitale,Bruxelles.Brussels:LibrairieModerne. PeWillem.1970."HetalgemeennederlandsinVlaanderen."InTaalenDialekt.Amsterdam:N. V.NoordHollandscheUitgeversMaatschappij. PicardL.194259.GeschiedenisvandevlaamscheenGrootNederlandschebeweging.2vols. Antwerp:DeSikkel. PirenneH.1928.LaBelgiqueetlaguerremondiale.NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress. .192232.HistoiredeBelgique.7vols.Brussels:M.Lamertin. 82

RoosensE.1981."TheMulticulturalNatureofContemporaryBelgianSociety:TheImmigrant Community."InConflictandCoexistenceinBelgium:TheDynamicsofaDividedSociety,ed.A. Lijphart.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,pp.6192. RundleS.1946.LanguageasaSocialandPoliticalFactorinEurope.London:FaberandFaber. SegersG.1907.Onzetaalinhetmiddelbaaronderwijs.Ghent:A.Siffer. SerrureC.P.185960."PieterHeynsenhetschoolwezenteAntwerpen,"VaderlandschMuseum3, pp.293404. SimenonG.1932.Lamaisonducanal.Paris:Fayard. SluysA.1939.Mmoiresd'unpdagogue.Brussels:EditionsdelaLiguedel'Enseignement. StengersJ.1959.LarformationdelafortirelinguistiqueenBelgiqueoudelalgitimatde l'hypothsehistorique.BrusselsBerchen:Latomus. SwingE.S.1980.BilingualismandLinguisticSegregationintheSchoolsofBrussels.PublicationB 95.Quebec:InternationalCenterforResearchonBilingualism. TemmermanH.1898.Demoedertaaleenigdoelmatigvoertuigtdergedachteinopvoedingen onderwijs.Ghent:Siffer. ToussaintN.1929."Problmesetexpriences."Lebilinguismeetl'ducation.Travauxdela confrenceinternationaltenueLuxembourgdu2au5avril1928.Geneva:BureauInternational d'Education,pp.14656. .1935.Bilinguismeetducation.Brussels:M.Lamertin. Detransmutatieklassen.1956.Brussels:AugustVermeylenFonds. ValkhoffM.1944.L'expansiondunerlandais.Trans.JulesSepulchre.Brussels:LesEditions Lumiere. VanderkerckoveR.G.1969.L'admissionprogressivedelalanguenerlandaisedanslestextes officileenBelgique.Brussels:UGA. VansilietteM.ca.1950."Noteconcernantlarepartitiondesclassesprimairesetgardiennesde langueflamandedansl'agglomrationbruxelloise."InCentrederecherche,no.153. VerheyenJ.E.1929."LebilinguismeenBelgique."Lebilingualismeetl'ducation.Travauxdela confrencetenueLuxembourgdu2au4avril1928.Geneva:BureauInternationald'Education, pp.13745. VerlooyJ.B.C.(1788)1938.Verhandelingopd'onachtdermoederlyketaelindeNederlanden. Antwerp:DeSikkel. WezemaelJ.van.1937.Bruxelles:Traitd'unionoupommedediscorde.Brussels:LeRougeetle Noir. WillemsenA.W.1958.HetVlaamsNationalisme,19141940.Groningen:J.B.Wolters. WilmarsD.1968.DepsychologievanhetfranstaligeinVlaanderen:Deachtergrondvande taalstrijd.Antwerp:StandaardUitgeverij. 83

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 84

5 BILINGUALISMINBOLIVIA XavierAlb PresentdayBoliviaisalandlockedcountryintheheartoftheAndeanregionofSouthAmerica, withanareaof1,098,581squarekilometersbutapopulationofonly6,257,721(1984estimate). ThecountryisdividedintotwodistinctecologicalzonestheAndeanandtheAmazonian. ApproximatelythreequartersofthepopulationliveintheAndeanzone,whichcoversonly slightlymorethanonethirdofBolivianterritoryandisdividedinturnintotwosubzonesthe Altiplano(lit."highplain"),alargeplateau3,600to4,200metersabovesealevel,withmountain rangeseasilyexceeding6,000meters(21percentofthecountry);andtheVallesInterandinos (intermontanevalleys),acomplex,ruggednetworkofmountainsandgenerallynarrowvalleys extendingeastwardtowardtheAmazonregion,withheightstypicallyover2,000metersbutoften varyingbetween4,000and1,000metersinaltitude.Thesevalleysoccupy16percentofthearea ofthecountry.Lastly,therearethevastLlanosOrientales(easternplains,alsoreferredtoasthe Oriente),withextensionstothenorthandsoutheast.TheLlanoscover63percentofthecountry, althoughonlyonefourthofthepopulationlivesthere.Mostoftheplainsareabelongstothe Amazonsystem,buthasatropicalorsemitropicalclimateandecology.Thedriersoutheastern sectionbelongstotheChacoregion,whichispartoftheLaPlataBasin.Excludingthenew centerofdevelopmentaroundSantaCruz,thesecondlargestcityofBolivia,populationdensities oflessthanonepersonpersquarekilometerarefoundintheLlanos;intheAndeanzone,onthe otherhand,densitiesoftentotwentyinhabitantspersquarekilometerarefrequent,butthereare variationsrangingfromamaximumofalittleoveronehundredinhabitantspersquarekilometer inthecentralvalleysofCocha ____________________ TranslatedfromSpanishbyLeePuigAntich. 85

bambaDepartmentandaroundLakeTiticacaintheAltiplanotolessthanoneinhabitantper squarekilometerintheandAltiplanoSur(southernplateau). Thehumangeographycorrespondstothismajorecologicalanddemographicdivision.The AndeanregionofAltiplanoandVallesispopulatedbasicallybypeopleofAndeanorigin.Today peopleofAymaralanguageandoriginpredominateintheAltiplanoandPuna(theareaabovethe limitofvegetation,about15,000feet),withextensionsintotheVallesandYungas(steep, semitropicalvalleyssometimestreatedasaseparateregion)nearestLaPaz,whilepresentday QuechuaspeakerspredominateintheValles,withextensionstotheAltiplanoSurandthe easternmostpartofOruroDepartment.TheLlanosOrientales,ontheotherhand,arepopulated bypeopleofselva(jungle)origin,togetherwiththemajorityofthoseofSpanishorigin.The latteralsooccupysomeoftheintermontanevalleysintheDepartmentsofTarija,SantaCruz,and theedgeofChuquisaca.Theentiretyisinterspersedwiththeurbanpopulation,whereadominant tendencytowardtheSpanishlanguageandculturegenerallycoexistswith,andexertspressure on,apopulationofQuechuaorAymaraorigin(usuallysomewhatover50percent).Onlythree citiesinBoliviaexceedthreehundredthousand(1984projection)oneineachecologicalarea andtogethertheycontainonly24percentofthepopulation.Secondarycitieshave8percentof thepopulation,andtownswithovertwothousandinhabitants,10percent.Theremainder(59 percent)liveinruralsettingsthatareevensmaller(datafromthelastcensus,takenin1976). HISTORICOLINGUISTICEVOLUTION Sinceancienttimes,thehistoricalevolutionoftheAndeanregionhasproceededseparatelyfrom thatoftheLlanosOrientales,althoughcontactbetweentheareashasintensified.InthepreInca era,thetropicalregionwasinhabitedbysmallautonomousgroupsofdiverselinguisticorigins. Thereisarchaeologicalevidencethatoneofthesegroupsdevelopedanimportantagricultural civilizationintheMoxosarea(todayBeniDepartment),withapopulationofperhapstwo hundredthousand(Denevan,1966).Inthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,severalwavesof Guaraniarrivedfromtheeastandsoutheast.FusingwiththeancientChanepopulation,theygave risetothenewChiriguanogroupinthefoothillsoftheAndesandtominorgroupsfurthernorth (Saignes,1974).Altogetherthereweremorethanfortyethnicgroups,withlittlearticulation amongthem,intheOriente. TheAndeanregionhadadenser,morehomogeneous,andmorearticulatedpopulation,which inhabitedelevated,protectedareas.OneoftheoldestgroupsisprobablytheUru,wholivedoff fishandwaterfowlalongtheinteriorbasinrunninglengthwisethroughtheAltiplano(Wachtel, 1978).Between600and1200A.D.,acivilizationcenteredinTihuanaco,nearLakeTiticaca(the organizationofwhichisstillnotwellunderstood),flourished,andexpandedthroughoutalarge partoftheareaoccupiedbypresentdayBoliviaandPeru.The 86

linguisticstructurefromthisperiodisnotknown.Therewereundoubtedlymanylocallanguages, nowlost,butwhoseexistenceisattestedbytoponyms.PuquinaandUruwereprobablythe dominantlanguages,perhapsinTihuanacoalso.Butatarelativelylatedate,JaqiAru(literally "humanlanguage")begantotakeover.TodayknownasAymara,JaqiAruapparentlyarrived fromthenorthandmayberelatedtoHuariculture(Torero,1970).Littlebylittle,controlwas establishedbyagriculturalpopulationsorganizedinayllus,whichwerebasedonrealorfictitious patrilinealdescentfromacommonancestor.TheUruwerereducedtoasubordinateethnosocial groupwithintheayllu.Theayllusweregroupedinturnintoabouttenethnicunitsordomainson theBoliviansideofLakeTiticacainadditiontoothersonthePeruvianside.Theseunitswere organizedintolargerconfederationshavingabipartitestructure,thefunctionofwhichremains unknown(BouysseCassagner,1978;Platt,inpress). Neithertheayllunortheethnicdomainoccupiedcontiguousterritorybutwasscatteredacross variouslocationsinordertogainaccesstoamaximumnumberofecologicalniches(Murra, 1975).Consequently,variousethnicgroupswereabletocoexistineachlocation,resultingina highdegreeoflinguisticintermingling.Inthefifteenthcentury,theIncaconquesttookplace fromCuzco(wheretheIncashadgoneafterTiticaca).Theframeworkdescribedabovewasleft intact,butitwasintegratedintoahigherlevelofstateorganizationcalledTwantinsuyu,"thefour unitedsuyu."TheAndeansectionfromCuzcosouthwardwastheQullasuyu;thelowerarea, towardtheselva,wascalledAntisuyuandwaspairedwiththeQullasuyu.TheAntisuyuwas neverpenetrateddeeplybytheInca.Fortheirpoliticalandeconomicends,theIncaenlargedthe frameworkinwhichaccesstodistantplacescouldbegained.Thus,thereweregreatrelocations ofpopulations,calledmitma,togetherwiththeirrespectivelanguages.Inaddition,for administrativepurposes,therewereofficialsoftheEmpirethroughouttheareawhospokeRuna Simi(literally"humanlanguage"),todaycalledQuechuaorQuichua.Thelanguagewasspoken intheregioninwhichtheIncahadoriginatedandwaslaterconvertedintoastatelanguage.The expansionofthislanguagethroughoutpresentdayBoliviaisdueprimarilytothedualInca administrativeandrelocationpolicies,andwascarriedoutonlyinthecenturypriortothe Spanishinvasion. ThesituationchangedwiththeinvasionoftheSpaniardsinthesixteenthcentury.Sincethe Andeanpeoplewereanimportantsourceoflaborforthemines(especiallyinPotosi)andthe newhaciendasandcities,theybecameboundtospecificlocalities,eventhoughthemajority continuedtoliveincommunitiesdirectlydescendedfromtheoldayllu.Theformermultiplicity ofethnicidentitiesbegantobelost,withtheresultthateveryonewasreducedtothecasteor ethnosocioculturalgroupof"Indian"or"native."Astratified,intermediategroupofmestizosor "cholos"alsoarose,withtheSpaniardsandtheirCreoledescendantsestablishingthemselvesat thepinnacleofthesocialhierarchy.Atthesametime,thisgeographicalandsocialhardening, togetherwiththeneedtofacilitatethemissionaryeffort,ledtogreaterlinguisticconsolidation. Initially, 87

theecclesiasticalauthoritiesplannedsermons,catechisms,andothermaterialsinthree"general" languages(orlinguafrancas)Quechua,Aymara,andPuquina.Puquinasoonlostitsimportance becauseitsspeakerswereassimilatedtooneoftheotherlanguages.Aymarawasconsolidated principallyintheAltiplano,whileQuechuawasestablishedintheValles,wheretheoldayllu organizationwasweaker.ItwasalsoeasierforpeoplefromotherregionstomigratetotheValles, andastheysettledonthehaciendas,theirformeridentitybegantobelost. ColonizationintheLlanosOrientaleshadcharacteristicsofitsown.ArrivingfromParaguay,the mainSpanishcontingentsettledaroundSantaCruzandmaintainedrelativelyweakrelationswith therestoftheAudienciaofCharcas(extendingoverpresentdayBolivia),towhichitbelonged. PenetrationintootherpartsoftheOrientewasdueabovealltothemissionaries.The reducciones(enforcedsettlementsofconvertedIndians)ofMoxosandChiquitos,whichwererun bytheJesuitsaccordingtothemodelalreadyflourishinginParaguayandadjoiningregions, becamerenownedthroughoutthenorth.Inthesereduccionestherearoseanewcultureahybrid createdfrommissionaryandnativeelementswhichmeldedthemanypreviousgroups(Parejas, 1976).ThechieftownsintheOrientetodayowetheirorigintothesereducciones,asindicatedby theirreligiousnames:Trinidad,SanIgnacio,andsoon.Evensomevarietiesoftheoldlanguages centeredaboutthemissionsstillbearthesenames(Trinitario,Ignaciano).Somegroupsremained apartfromtheSpaniards,and,withonegroup,theChiriguanos,therewasapermanentconflict overborders.ThemissionariesnevermanagedtofullyestablishthemselvesinChiriguano territory,andthecompleteconquest(notwithoutelementsofgenocide)wasonlyachievedin 1892,wellwithintherepublicanperiod.Sincethattime,theChiriguanopopulationhasremained extremelylow(onetenthoftheoriginal),similartotheeffectsoftheSpanishinvasioninother regions(Calzavarini,1980). SincetheformationoftheBolivianrepublicin1825,thefollowingdevelopmentshavetaken place.Inthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury,itbegantobepossibletoimplementthe "liberal"program(inBoliviaaswellasinPeruandothercountries).Thisinvolvedtransforming theoldAndeancomunidad(indigenouscommunitywithmembershipusuallybasedondescent andhavingsomecommunalfeatures)intosmallplotsofmarketablelandwhichwerethen exposedtothegreedofunscrupulousnewlandowners.Inafewdecadesthecommunitylands werereducedfromapproximately66percentto22percent,andthemajorityofthecomunarios swelledtheranksofthehaciendapeons,whoweresubjecttoakindoffeudallaborsystem.This resultedinfurtherstereotypingofIndiansasagroup(the"indiada"),andincontinued discrimination.IntheOrientethegreatcattlerancheshadbeencontinuingtheiradvancesince theexpulsionoftheJesuitsattheendoftheeighteenthcentury.Herealsothenativepopulation constantlydecliningreceiveddiscriminatorytreatment.Afterthedefeatsof1875and1892,the Guaranipeoplesufferedsimilarvicis 88

 situdes.Nevertheless,afewpocketsofcomunidadesstillremainedinvariousareasofthe AltiplanoandOriente. TheeconomyofBolivia,likethatoftheAudienciaofCharcas,hasbeenbasedprimarilyonthe exportofmineralsfirstsilverandsincetheendofthenineteenthcentury,tin.Aswellas affectingthegrowthanddeclineofmanytowns,thisactivityhascausedshiftsinworkers, capital,andcommercialundertakings.AbouthalfofthecitiesandlargetownsinBoliviaowe theiroriginandpresentlivelihoodtosomekindofminingactivity.Atthelinguisticlevel,these processes,inadditiontogreaterHispanization,havecontributedtotheadvanceofQuechuain formerAymaraareasoftheAltiplano,principallyaroundOruroandPotosi.Thereisaclear correlationbetweenthelocationofthemines,theadvanceofminerelatedrailroads,andthe linesofpenetrationbyQuechua. Thetwentiethcentury,especiallysincetheRevolutionof1952,hasseenarestructuringof Bolivianterritoryandsociety.This,inturn,hashadsociolinguisticconsequences.Afterthe defeatintheChaco,inwhichalargeportionoftheuninhabitedsoutheastwaslosttoParaguay (recallingthelossofthecoastallandsin1879andthenorthernrubberregionsin1900),there aroseanewnationalconsciousnesswhichsoughtgreaterintegrationofallsocialstratainthe countryandbetterutilizationofthelowlands.Theseissuesculminatedinthegovernment establishedin1952.TheruralmassesrecoveredtheirlandswiththeAgrarianReformof1953; theywereintegratedintopoliticalandlaboractivitiesandpartiallyincorporatedintothe dominanteconomy;andfinally,theydrewnearertothedominantculturethroughanewnetwork ofruralschools.Thesechangesalsoacceleratedmigrationtothecities,andonthelinguistic level,greateraccesstoSpanish,theofficiallanguage.ToencouragegrowthintheLlanos,new channelsofcommunication,resettlementprograms,andinjectionsofcapitalwereinitiated.Asa result,importantnewdevelopmenthasarisenaroundSantaCruz,whichinthreedecadeshas becomethesecondlargestcityinthecountry,withmorethanfourhundredthousandinhabitants (thelargestisLaPaz,withapproximatelyImillion).Althoughthe"marchtotheOriente"hasnot involvedthenumbersofpeopleoriginallyhopedfor,aboutonehundredthousandruralfamilies fromthe"colla"region(theAltiplanoandinparticular,theValles)havebeenestablishedin newlyopenedagriculturalareas,therebybringingabouttheadvanceoftheAymaraandQuechua boundaries(throughLaPaz,andCochabambaandSantaCruz,respectively).However,inthese areas,whicharepredominantlySpanishspeaking,thetransplantedpopulationrapidlybecomes bilingual,especiallyinthesucceedinggeneration. THESITUATIONTODAY Thecurrentoutcomeofthesechangeshasthelinguistic,socioeconomic,andgeographic characteristicsdescribedbelow(Alb,1980). 89

TheSpanishArea Accordingtothelasttwocensuses,36percentofthe1950populationofBoliviaclaimedSpanish astheirprincipalhabituallanguage.Twentysixyearslater,in1976,54percentmadethisclaim. Thatis,habitualspeakersofSpanishincreasedatanannualrateof3.69percent.Sincetherateof demographicgrowthinthecountrywas2.11percentduringthisperiod,theannualrateof increaseofhabitualspeakerswas1.58percenthigherthantherateofnaturalincreaseinthe population.Thesefiguresmustbeinterpretedcautiously,inasmuchascensusquestions pertainingtoattitudeswhichconcernprestige(suchasspeakingadominantlanguageoronethat isdiscriminatedagainst)elicitresponsesthattendtobeexaggeratedonthesideofgreater prestige,inthiscaseSpanish.Nevertheless,thetrendtowardtheexpansionofSpanishisevident. Atthesamerate,almosttheentirepopulationwouldclaimSpanishastheirhabituallanguageby theyear2015(withexceptionsmainlyinruralpartsofChuquisacaandPotosiDepartments). Manyofthesepeopleabout45percentin1976arebilingual.Inthatyear,68percentofthe populationknewoneoftheindigenouslanguages,andatthesametime,77percentclaimedto knowSpanish.Consideringtheprestigeeffectmentionedabove,thefirstfigureshouldprobably behigherandthesecond,lower. ThetrendtowardSpanishneedsnofurtherelaboration,asitisthedominantandofficial languageofthecountry.IfthelevelsofSpanishareanalyzedbyagegroup,wefindthatthis trendhasbeeninexistenceinasystematicwayforalongtimebutthatithasacceleratedsince the1952Revolution,owingtoanewruraleconomicstructure,migrationstothecity,and proliferationofschoolsinthecountryside.Accordingtopresenttrends(whichareprobably exaggerated),by1990allchildrentenyearsofagewillknowatleastrudimentarySpanish,and bythetimetheyaregrownaroundtheyear2040itcouldbeexpectedthattheentire population,includingruraldwellers,wouldknowatleastthismuchSpanish,exceptforthevery oldandthosefromremoteareas. Judgingfromtheseprojectionsbyagegroup,however,bilingualismwillcontinuetobe important.Itwillreachitspeakaround1988.Afterwardsitwillgraduallyrecedeinfavorof Spanishmonolingualism,evenintheruralsectors.In2021,halfoftheruraltenyearoldswill probablystillknowanindigenouslanguageinadditiontoSpanish;in2074,onlyathirdwill knowoneoftheselanguages;andby2131,possiblyallruralchildrenwillbeSpanish monolinguals.Itisforeseeablethatfiftyyearslater,in2181,whenthesechildrenareadultsof sixty,thecountrywillhavereachedaconditionofSpanishmonolingualism,withonlymarginal bilingualgroups. Projectionsbasedondatafromthelastcenturyareofinterestfordeterminingfuturetrends,but theirvalueisprobablyrelative.Ifthepresentlinguisticpolicypersists,itisprobablethatas Spanishcontinuestoexpand,therhythmofchangewillaccelerate,thusshorteningtheintervals indicatedabove.Butneithershould 90

weignorethepossibilitythatasQuechuaandAymarapeasantsgaingreateraccesstoformal educationandtopoliticalandeconomicpower,theoppositesituationcouldarisecomparableto whattookplacewithvariousEuropeanminoritiesorinthenewAfricancountriesduringthelast twocenturies.Inthiscase,evenifuniversalaccesstoSpanishwerenottodecrease,bilingualism mightincrease,andtheprogressiontowardSpanishmonolingualismwouldbeslowed,although probablynotstopped. Hispanization,atleastasahabituallanguage,isobviouslystrongerinthecities.Itisalmost impossibletosurvivetherewithoutknowingandusingSpanish.Thispressureisatitsheightin SantaCruz,intheLlanos,wherethereisalongSpanishtradition.Untilthe1950sSantaCruz wasrelativelysmallandisolated.AlmosteveryonewasaSpanishmonolingualexceptforafew patrones(landowners)andtheirservants,whoperhapsknewoneoftheeasternlanguagesas well.Butin1954ahighwaywasopenedwhichlinkedittotherestofthecountrybywayof Cochabamba.Shortlyafterwards,tworailroadsconnectedSantaCruzwithBrazilandArgentina. Thecityandsurroundingcountrysidewereinundatedwithpeopleandcapital.Asaconsequence, thecityhasgrownatanannualrhythmof7.3percent,sothatby1976,40percentofits populationhadoriginatedelsewhere.Ofthose,approximatelyhalfcamefromruralareasofthe department(alreadylargelySpanishspeaking)andtheotherhalffromtheAndeanregion, amongwhomareasubstantialnumberofQuechuaspeakingexpeasants.However,asthelatter areintheminority,theyneitherusetheirmaternallanguagefrequentlynorteachittotheir childrenbornandraisedinthenewenvironment.Asaresult,only13percentofthepresent residentsofSantaCruzknowoneoftheindigenouslanguages(mainlyQuechua). Ontheotherhand,thepressuretouseSpanishinthecitiesoftheAndean,or"colla,"region(La Paz,Oruro,Cochabamba,Potosi,Sucre,aswellassmallertowns),althoughitexists,isless strong.Inthesecitiesalittlemorethanhalfthepopulation,includinglargegroupslivinginthe cityforseveralgenerations,knowAymara(dominantinLaPaz;aminoritylanguageinOruro)or Quechua(intheremainder).Therearefewmonolingualsinindigenouslanguages(usuallythe elderlyornewarrivals)becauseoftheenvironmentalpressuresalreadyindicated.Allinall,itis evidentthatSpanishlargelyprevailsintheurbansetting,especiallyinthepublicarena. Inaddition,thereisasectionofthecountrywhichisfundamentallySpanishspeakinginbothits urbanandruralareas.ItcoversthegreaterpartoftheOrienteandextendsalongthesoutheastto aregionofvalleysgoingfromTarijatoValleGrande(SantaCruzDepartment).Inthisarea,a largemajorityknowsandspeaksSpanish.Exceptionsinclude:(1)thenorthernmostpartofthe country(PandoDepartment)where20percenthabituallyspeakPortugueseowingtoBrazilian influence;(2)aregionwideminoritybetween56,000and132,000accordingtoestimates(about 10percent)whichknowsorspeaksoneoftheindigenouslanguagesoftheOriente;andfinally, (3)the"colonization"areas(populationresettlements)ofSantaCruz,wherethenewsettlersare usuallyofQuechua 91

(12.4percent)or,toalesserextent,Aymara(1.8percent)origin.Inthenorththelinguistic boundaryisbeingpressuredontheeastbyPortuguese;inthecentralareaitisbeingpressuredon thewestbycolonization.Ontheotherhand,thesoutheasternboundaryisslowlyadvancing towardthenorthwest.Apockethasbeencreatedthere,wherethepeople,althoughnotbilingual, useaformofcolloquialSpanishwithQuechuasuffixes(knownlocallyasLlapuni).Speakers say,forexample: Vendrschu? Vendrllapuni ('Vendrs? Claroquevendr!') [Willyoucome? Ofcourse,Iwill!] Intherestofthecountry,thatis,mostoftheAndeanregionanditssmallerurbancenters, Spanishisdefinedaminoritylanguage,althoughitmaintainshighprestige.Itissomewhat strongerintheprincipalminingcenters,eventhoughoneoranotherAndeanlanguageis regularlyusedinthehomeandinthemines(andalsoforreligiousrites).However,Spanishis usuallyusedformeetings,includinglabormeetings,andotherpublicactivities.Inotherplaces thepresenceofSpanishisevenweaker.Itisdominantonlyintheartificialenvironmentofthe school,whereitsuseisobligatory.Eveninmanynonpeasanttowns,whichattempttomaintain theirdistinctivenessandsuperioritybothsociallyandculturallywithrespecttothesurrounding ruralcommunities,Spanishprevailsonlyatthepubliclevel,wheneveritbecomesdesirableto emphasizethesedifferences. VariousgeographicandsocialdialectscanbedistinguishedwithinBolivianSpanish. Geographically,thethreemostconspicuousdialectsareColla,spokenintheAndeanregions, Camba,spokenintheOriente,andChapaco,spokeninthesoutheast,especiallyinTarija Department.CollahasvariouscharacteristicsincommonwithotherhighlandregionsofLatin America,forexample,theuseofasibilatedr[z],aswellanumberoftraitsderivedfromthe Andeansubstrata.Someofthesetraitsarefoundatanysociallevel,forexample,postpositiveps (for"pues"or"therefore"inthestandardmeaning;otherusesdialectally);andhabia+Vdo (pluperfecttenseform)todenotelackofpersonalknowledge.Others,however,areindicativeofa typeofcolloquialSpanishassociatedwiththelowerclasses.Forexample,thesentence,"Dela Mariasumaridoestaenahi"[Maria'shusbandisoverthere]containsseveraltraitsborrowed fromQuechuaandAymara.Cambahasmanycharacteristicstypicalofhotlowlandareasof SouthAmerica,suchassuppressionoffinalorintervocalics.Inaddition,itincorporatesmany wordsfromeasternlanguages,includingsomeendings(e.g.,thediminutiveinga).Theprincipal characteristicsofChapacoareitsintonation,inwhichlongandshortsyllablesaremarked,and thesurvivalofmanyarchaicSpanishexpressionswhichhavebeenlostinotherregions.These traitsaremorepronouncedinruralareasandarethereforethe 92

basisofsocialdialects.Oneofthesedialects,nearertheQuechuaboundary,isthepreviously mentionedLlapuni. First,Spanishpredominatesintheareasofofficialandprofessionalactivities,modern technology,writtenandprintedmaterials,formaleducation,andcertainmassmedia(thepress andtelevision,inparticular),aswellasinmaterialimportedfromothercountries.Asfaras officialactivitiesareconcerned,theadvantageofraisingtheothernationallanguagestoofficial statushasbeendiscussedonvariousoccasions.However,suchastephasneverbeenproposed, letaloneimplemented.Inpractice,thegreatmajorityofactivitiesontheofficiallevelarecarried outinSpanish,exceptforthosereferredtobelow. Second,theprofessionsandmoderntechnologyhavealsobeencorneredbySpanish.The monopolyheldbythedominantsectoronaccesstohighereducation,writtenmaterial,and technicalandacademicadvances,togetherwiththeindisputablefactthatSpanishisoneofthe internationallanguages,contributestothesoledevelopmentofSpanishinmoderntechnicaland academicfields.Theothernationallanguagesareunquestionablycapableofdevelopmentin theseareas,aswereSpanishandGermanwhentheysupplantedLatin,orlanguagesthathave gainedofficialstatusinthenewexcolonialcountries.However,thepresentconfigurationof socialforcesdoesnotfavorsuchadevelopment,withtheresultthattheSpanishmonopolyin theseareasisassured. Third,writtenand,particularly,printedmaterialsarealmostexclusivelyinSpanish.Thesame monopolyexistsintheeducationalsystemowingtotheexplicitpolicyofnearlyallgovernments sincethecolonialera.Theinclusionofthenativelanguageineducationalprogramshas occasionallybeendiscussed,buteitherhasnotreachedapracticablelevelorhasbeenlimitedto smallexperimentsintheearlygradesinselectedruralareas.Asaresultofthispolicy,the populationthatknowshowtowriteonlyknowshowtowriteinSpanish.Eventhepossibilityof readinginanotherlanguageisnonexistent.Themainexceptionsaresomeofthereligious, didactic,andexpressiveliterature.OnenationalweeklyregularlyincludesacolumninAymara (orsometimesQuechua),andthreepopularmonthliesincludesectionsinQuechua. OtherfunctionalareasinwhichthedominanceofSpanishisoutofproportiontoitsnumberof speakersincludepoliticsandotherchannelsofsocialcommunication,businessandcommercial networks,andotherpublicservices.WhatisnoteworthyhereisnotthatSpanishdominates (whichhasalwaysbeentrue),butthatitnolongerholdsabsolutedominion.Inthelastfew decades,probablyasasideeffectofthesocialtransformationsengenderedbythe1952 Revolution,theindigenouslanguageshavecreatedaplaceforthemselvesintheseareas.Theonly placewhereSpanishcontrolsalmostalltheactivityisintelevision,thenewestmeansof communication.ButeventhereAndeanlanguagesareoccasionallyusedforcertainprograms andcommercials.Ontheotherhand,nativelanguageshavefrequentlybeenusedinBolivian cinema,which,althoughsmallinoutput,hasachievedworldwiderecognitionforexcellence. Likewise,radio,whichuntilthe1950sbroadcastalmostexclusivelyinSpanish,nowdevotes 93

ampleairtimetoQuechuaandAymara,withsomestationsspecializingintheselanguages(see below). TheAndeanlanguagesobviouslypredominateinruralareasand,hence,amongpeopleengagedin agriculture.Withinthecities,however,thedifferencesinSpanishdominancearerelatedto occupation.Exceptforruralteachers,professionalshavethehighestincidenceofSpanish monolingualism.LessobviousisthefactthattheothermostHispanicizedoccupationalgroup(at timesevenmoresothantheprofessionals)aretheofficeworkers.Attheotherextremeintheurban worldarethetwoareasinwhichbilingualismpredominatessmallbusinessandthevariouscraft occupationsalthoughdistinctionsneedtobemadealongoccupationallines.Amachinist(more Hispanicized)isnotcomparabletoanembroiderer(moreAymarized);norisashopkeeperinthe centeroftowncomparabletotheoperatorofamarketstall.Thecraftoccupationsconstitutethe greatestpercentageoftheeconomicallyactivepopulationandrepresenttoagreatextentthe informalsectoroftheeconomy,wherealargepartoftheurbanlowerandlowermiddleclassis found.Theyarenumericallyofgreaterimportancethansalariedworkersinacountryaslittle industrializedandundercapitalizedasBolivia.However,merchantswhoarebilingualaremore successful,astheyareabletodevelopfavorablerelationswithcustomersofallkinds.This advantagebecomesanecessitywhentheirbusinessrequiresfrequentdealingsbetweentownand country.Comparabletothesituationofthemerchantsisthatoftheworkersengagedin transportation.Manytruckersarealsobusinessmenand,assuch,belongtothegroupofbilinguals. Butamongurbantransportworkersproperlyspeaking(taxidrivers,busdrivers,etc.),theprestigeof Spanishprevails,eventhoughmanyarebilingualbyvirtueoftheirsocialorigin.Asimilarsituation ariseswithdomesticworkers,whodominatetheurbanfemaleworkforce.Almostallareofrural originandaregenerallyunmarried.ManylearnSpanishonlyafterarrivalinthecity,butoncewell establishedintheirnewrole,theyreadilyswitchtoSpanish.Theirconstantpresenceinhomes whereSpanishisalmosttheonlylanguageundoubtedlyreinforcesthisattitudewhilesimultaneously raisingtheirstatusvisvisotherruralwomen.However,migrantstoBoliviancitiesdonot experiencethelinguisticandculturalshockthatoccursinlargecitieslikeLimaandBuenosAires, wherewomenarrivingfromthecountryareabletosurviveonlybymakingatotalbreak(including modeofdress)withtheiroriginalculture. TheQuechuaArea ThesecondmostimportantlanguageinBoliviaisQuechua,eventhoughitwaslargelyintroduced intotheregionduringthefewdecadesofIncadominationoftheQullasuyu,andconsolidatedeven later,duringthecolonialperiod.In1950,itwasthehabituallanguageof36.5percentofBolivians, thusoccupyingfirstplaceoverSpanishbyanarrowmargin.By1976,however,only26percent claimedtopreferitsuseinthehome,although38percentofthepopulationstill 94

knewthelanguage.Becauseitisalanguageofoppressedgroupsandthereforehaslesssocial prestige,thesepercentagesareprobablysomewhattoolow.Intheintervalbetweenthetwo censuses,theabsolutenumberofhabitualQuechuaspeakersroseatanannualrateof9.7percent, butwhentherapidpopulationgrowthistakenintoaccount,therelativeimportanceofQuechua throughoutthecountrydeclinedby1.3percentannually. Althoughithasimportantvariantswhichattimescouldbeconsidereddistinctlanguages,Quechua isalsospokeninothercountries,fromSantiagodelEsteroinnorthernArgentina,alongtheentire PeruvianandEcuadoriansierra,tosouthernColombia,whereitisknownasInga.Thus,Quechuais byfarthemostwidespreadoftheAmerindianlanguagesandtheonewiththegreatestnumberof speakers. HalfoftheBolivianswhohabituallyspeakQuechualiveintheDepartmentofCochabamba.Potosi Departmenthas28percent;Chuquisaca,13percent;andtheremainderarealmostequallydivided amongnorthernLaPaz,easternOruro,andthecolonizedareasofSantaCruzDepartments. Dialectically,BolivianQuechuabelongstoQuechuaII,withinwhichitisasimplifiedvariantof CuscoQuechua(Torero,1965).EvenmorethanCuscoQuechua,itshowsclearinfluencesfrom Aymara,notonlyintheseriesofglottalstops(p',t',etc.)butalsoinvocabulary.Thereisnotmuch dialectalvarietywithinBolivia,andproblemsofmutualintelligibilityneverarise.Themain differenceoccursbetweentheQuechuaofnorthernLaPaz,whichismuchclosertotheCusco variant,andtherestofBolivianQuechua.ApurerformhasbeenmaintainedinChuquisacaand Potosi,althoughinsomeareasinnorthernPotosi,arecentchangeduetoAymarahasbeennoted, thatis,theuseofsuffixesliket'ainsteadoftheQuechuari.Themosthighlyevolvedvariants arethoseofCochabamba,whichspreadoutfromtherewithmigratingminersandmerchantsto partsofOruroandtheminingdistrict.Inthisdialect,innovationssuchaschaqandsqa(insteadof chisandsha)havebeenintroduced,andinaddition,theinfluenceofSpanishismuchstrongerat everylevel.Forthisreasonitissometimescharacterizedas"Quechuanol"(Quechuaespaol). InnovationsofthiskindhavegeneratedvarioussocialdialectswithinQuechua,ofwhich"Patron" variantsorthoseofthenonruralsocialgroupsmostcloselyresembletheCochabamban.The influenceofSpanishisalsoverystronginurbanareas,particularlyingrammaticalconstructions incorporatingvariousSpanishelements.Oneoftheurbanvariants,Quechuaradiospeech,while portrayingthesegrammaticalcharacteristics,attemptstoformnewwordsfromQuechuarootsbut withsemanticareasborrowedfromSpanish(Alb,1974). QuechuacoexistswithAymaraintworegionsnorthernPotosi,includingpartsofOruro,and northernLaPaz.Inseveralcantonsmorethanhalfthepopulationknowsbothlanguages,without countingthosewhohavelearnedSpanishinschoolorthroughtravel. TheOruroPotosisituationofbiandtrilingualismhasresultedinmarkedlinguisticstratification. Spanishisattheapexofthehierarchybutatthesame 95

timeisthelanguageofthe"others,"thedomineeringq'ara.InsecondplaceisQuechua, consideredtobethelanguageofmerchants,miners,andbusinesstransactions;andfinally, Aymara,thelanguageoffarmers,especiallyinareascontainingayllus(indigenous comunidades).ThetwolanguagesarealsointertwinedontheecologicallevelAymaraprevails inthehighlandsandQuechuainthevalleys,whereformerlythereweremanymorehaciendas. Becausetheytravelmore,themenlearnQuechuamoreeasily,eveniftheyareofAymaraorigin. Analogoussituations,withasimilarecologicalintermingling,occurinnorthernLaPaz,butthe socialstratificationisreversed.AfterSpanish,whichishardlyspokenthere,thelanguageof prestigeandcommerceisAymara,whichextendsdownfromLakeTiticacaandthecapital throughthehighlandpunas;theleastprestigiouslanguageistheQuechuaofthevalleys. TrilingualismorQuechuaAymarabilingualismislessfrequentthere,althoughasituationhas beencreatedinwhichQuechuaandAymaraspeakersmanagetounderstandeachotherwhile speakingtheirownlanguage.Forreasonsalreadymentioned,Aymaraisretreatingbeforethe QuechuaadvanceintheOruroPotosiarea,whileinnorthernLaPaztheoppositeisoccurring. Fromthefunctionalstandpoint,Quechuahasbeenfrequentlyusedinpoliticalactivitysincethe 1952Revolution.TheAgrarianReformofthefollowingyearoriginatedintheintensepopular movementsintheCochabambavalleys,andsincethenthepeasantlabormovement,ledformany yearsbythatregion,hasbeenanimportantcomponentinnationalpolitics,regardlessof ideology.In1945,aBolivianpresident,ColonelGualbertoVillarroel,whowasanativeofa Cochabambatown,convenedtheFirstNationalIndigenousCongresswhereheaddressedthe gatheringinQuechua.Twentyyearslateranothermilitarypresident,RenBarrientos,whowas fromaneighboringtown,becamefamousforhisfrequenttripsthroughthecountrysidewhere, besidesspeakinginQuechua,heparticipatedinmanyotherculturalactivitiesfood,dancing,the compadrazgorelationship(ritualkinshipsystem),andsoon.ButtheprincipaluseofQuechuain thepoliticalsphereisinthedemonstrationsandorganizationsofthepeasantsthemselvesand,to alesserextent,oftheminersandurbanlowerclasses.Quechuaalsohasasignificantplaceinthe radiobroadcastsofthearea.Itisthemostfrequentlyusedlanguageonvariouseducational stations,whichhavedevelopedsuchcreativeprogramsasserialdramatizations,songcontests, andotherexpressionsofpopularculture.InthepopulatedvalleysofCochabambaandthemining districtsthereareaconsiderablenumberoflocalstationswithfrequentprogrammingin Quechua.Thislanguageisalsoheardovermanystationsinthecity,especiallyinthemorning. EvensomeofthelargeststationsinLaPaz,intheheartoftheAymarazone,havesomemorning programsinQuechua. TheAymaraArea AymaraisthethirdmostfrequentlyspokenlanguageofBoliviaandthesecondmostfrequently spokenAmerindianlanguageatthepresenttime.In1950,25 96

percentofthepopulationusedithabituallyasopposedtoonly19percentin1976(although28 percentknewit).Inabsolutenumbers,habitualspeakersofAymaraincreasedatanannualrateof 1.14percentbetween1950and1976.Takingapopulationgrowthintoaccount,thismeansthat theproportionoftotalAymaraspeakersrelativetospeakersofSpanishhasdecreasedby0.9 percentannually.However,sincetheannualrateofgrowthintheruralsectionsoftheAltiplano isabout1percent(becauseofinfantmortalityandmigration),thenintheseareasAymarais remainingstableandisprobablypenetratingurbanareasthroughmigration.Thefiguresgiven forthislanguageindicateadegreeoflanguageandculturalloyaltysuperiortothatofQuechua, whoserelativeannuallosswas1.34percent. Geographically,AymaraisspokenfromLakeTiticaca(includingthreehundredandfifty thousandspeakersonthePeruvianside),alongtheentireAltiplanointhedepartmentsofLaPaz andmostofOruro(exceptintheeastwhereawedgeofQuechuahasrecentlypenetrated),tothe northernpartoftheSalardeUyuni(UyuniSaltpan).InPotosi,AymaraisspokenintheLlica region,locatednorthofthesaltpan,andintheprovincescomprisingtheregionknownasNorte dePotosi(northernPotosi),asfarasUrmiriintheProvinceofFriasandanotherenclavefurther south.Intheseareas,AymaraentersintosymbiosiswithQuechuainthemannerdescribedinthe precedingsection.OutsidetheAltiplano,AymaraextendsintothevalleysthroughoutLaPaz Department,where(asalreadymentioned)itisadvancingonaQuechuaenclaveinthe northernmostsection.Nearerthecentralarea,itispenetratingthewarmregionsoftheYungas and,recently,thenewresettlementareas.IslandsofAymarapersistinsouthernLaPaz,eastern Oruro,andnorthernPotosi,aswellasinhighlandareasofCochabamba.However,in CochabambaAymaraisrecedingbeforeQuechua,whichisadvancingfromtheValles. AswithQuechua,thedialectaldifferencesinAymaraarenotsogreatthattheycreateproblems ofmutualintelligibility(Briggs,1976).Themaingeographicaldistinctionisbetweendialects aroundOruroandPotosi,whichcouldbeconsideredperipheralandmoreconservative,andthose ofLaPaz,whicharemoreinnovativeandsociallyprestigious.LaPaz,themostdensely populateddepartment,contains83percentofthehabitualspeakersofAymara.Orurohas11 percent;Potosi,4.5percent;andCochabamba,1.5percent.ThePunavarieties,locatedinPeru, resembletheperipheralsoutherndialectsmorethantheydotheinnovativeoneofLaPaz.The fewthousandAymarasontheChileanside,oppositeOruro,speakanothervariety,whichhas beenmuchmoreinfluencedbySpanish.Ontheotherhand,theSpanishinfluenceonthe remainingAymaradialectsismuchweakerthaninQuechua.Forexample,itisnotunusualto findthefiveSpanishvowelsandthevoicedstopsb,d,gintheQuechuanphonologicalsystem (especiallyinCochabamba),whereastheoppositehasoccurredinAymara.Manybilingualswho speakSpanishfluentlywaiverintheuseoftheseSpanishsounds.Differentiationhasalso developedamongsocialdialects,principallyinLaPaz,whichsomeauthorshavetermedPatron, Missionary,and 97

RadioAymara.Allofthesedialectsarecharacterizedbyweakeningofthedeepstructuresofthe languageowingtoloanwordsfromSpanish(Hardman,1981). Theforegoingunderscoresthestatisticallyverifiedfactthatthereisgreaterlanguageandcultural loyaltyinthecaseofAymara.Thisphenomenoncanbeexplainedhistoricallybythegreaterlength oftimeinwhichAymara,incontrasttoQuechua,hasbeenestablishedontheAltiplano.Itisalso significantfromthesocialstandpointthattheAymaraAltiplanoandtheayllusofnorthernPotosi havespearheadedmanymoremovementsfortherestorationofIndianrightsandthatthesehave attachedgreaterimportancetotheethnoculturalandhistoricalcomponentsthansimilarmovements occurringinQuechuaareas.Thiswaswhathappenedinthegreatgeneraluprisingagainstthe Spanishregimein1780theKataribrothersofnorthernPotosiandTupaqKatariofLaPaz promotedthesefeaturesofthemovement,whereastheAmaru[sic]ontheCuscoQuechuaside soughtgreaterparticipationfromthemestizosandcreoles.Inrecenttimes,thereisaclearcontrast betweenthepowerfulnewKataristamovement(seebelow)andthemorepopulistandclientalistic characterofthe1952peasantmovementintheQuechuavalleysofCochabamba.Nonetheless, throughoutthesoutheasttheQuechualanguagehasbeenadvancingattheexpenseofAymara duringthelasttwocenturies,owingtotheinferioroccupationalstatusoftheAymarasvisvisthe Quechuaminersandtradespeople.AtthesametimenorthernPotosi,whichwasmorecentrally locatedandhadgreateragroeconomicimportanceinthecolonialera(becauseofitsproximitytothe Potosimine),isnowseparatedfromtheprincipalcommunicationroutes,andmanyofitsayllus, havingbecomeisolated,haveslippedintosubsistenceagriculture.Thus,whiletheKataribrothers spokeAymarainMachain1780,theirdescendantsnowknowonlyQuechua. ThefunctionalusesofAymararesemblethoseofQuechua,withthesamecontrastsandgeneral distinctionsmadeinconnectionwithSpanishinthepreviousQuechuadiscussion.Whenitcomesto politics,however,thelanguageismoreoftenusedbytheAymarasthemselvesthanbymestizo presidents.Withtheweakeningaftertwodecadesoftheprogrambeguninthe1952Revolution,a newmovementarose,ledbybothAymarapeasantsandmigrantstoLaPaz.Significantly,this movementadoptedthenameKataristainmemoryofthe1780leader,TupaqKatari.Ifthe1952 programcamefromanewandinnovativegovernment(undoubtedlyspurredbythepopularuprising intheCochabambahaciendas),thepointofdeparturefortheKataristasofthe1970sstemsfromthe necessityofbeingtakenintoaccountandfromlackofconfidenceinmeasurespromulgatedfrom above.Thismovementhasbeeneffectiveinleadingthereorganizationoftheentirenationalpeasant movementandinforminganewandindependentsyndicalism.Asasymbolicgesture,someofits more"Indianist"branchesevenlaunchedAymarapresidentialcandidates.Inallsectorsofthe movement,thereclaimingoftheculturalandlinguisticheritageisconsideredtobeveryimportant, althoughthemajoritydonotdisassociateitfromeconomic,social,andpoliticalchange.This developmentisinlinewithothereventsnotnecessarilyarisingfromtheKataristamovement.For example,LaPazhas 98

witnessedtheemergenceofAymaraledorganizationssuchasILCA(InstitutodeLenguay CulturaAymaraInstituteforAymaraLanguageandCulture)andtheuniversitygroup,Memoria ComunitariaAymara(AymaraCommunityMemory)forthestudyoftheAymaralanguage, culture,andhistory,someofwhichhavebranchesinotherregions.TheAymarapresenceonradiois alsostrongerthanformerly.InLaPaz,fiveoutoftwentyonestationsbroadcastinAymaraformost oftheday.Ofthese,onlyoneisaneducationalstation,anditistheonlyonethatcoverstheentire ruralsector.Theothersaresmall,privatelyownedcommercialconcerns,whosebroadcastingpower (andprogrammingemphasis)allowsthemtoreachonlytheAymaraaudienceofthecityandits environs.ThisinitselfisindicativeoftheweightthattheAymaralanguageandculturecarryinthe capitalcityaphenomenonfurthercorroboratedbythemanyAymaracelebrationsinthecity, includingsomeofrecentorigin.Whathasbeenevolvingmightbetermedtheurbanvariantof Aymaraculture,inwhichtraditionalAymaraelementsandthenewnecessitiesandstimuliofthebig cityareachievingasynthesisthatishighlyfluidandopentoinnovation(Alb,Greaves,and Sandval,1983). OtherLanguagesandCulturalGroups Accordingtothelasttwocensuses,theremainderofBolivia'snativegroupshavelittledemographic importance.In1950,2.9percentweresaidtohabituallyspeakotherlanguages.By1976,the percentagehaddroppedprecipitouslyto0.9percent,implyinganannuallossofabout1.9percentin absolutetermsand4.4percentinrelativeterms.Accordingly,thelanguagesofthesenumerous minoritygroupswouldseemtobeonthewaytoimmediateextinction.Butthesecensusdatamust beinterpretedinlightofotherdatacompiledbyethnologistsspecializingintheBolivianOriente. Theprospectofimminentextinctionismuchmoreevidentingroupswithfewerspeakers.An ethnographicrecountin1974showedatotaloffortyethnicgroupsintheOriente,butofthese twentythreehadpopulationsestimatedatlessthanonethousand,includingtenthathadnomore thanonehundredandanothereightforwhichinformationwasunobtainable(Riester,1976).The onlysmallgroupthatmaintainsacertainsolidarityandhasevenshownsignsofgrowthisthe Chipaya,descendantsoftheancientUruandsituatedintheheartoftheOrurosectionofthe Altiplano.Itisinterestingthatthishasoccurred,eventhoughtheChipayaarefrequenttravelersand areunderheavypressurefrommanysidestoassimilate. Amongtheotherminoritygroups,theChiriguano(numberingabouttwentythousand)andthe Guarayo(abouteightthousand)branchesoftheGuaraniarethemoststableandhaveshownthe mostsignsofculturalandlinguisticrevival(butnottheSirionoortheprobablyextinctGuarasug'we branches).Thelattergroup,whichwasfully"conquered"inChiriguanoterritoryattheendofthe lastcentury,immediatelyunderwentheavydemographicandculturaldisinte 99

gration.However,inrecentdecadesithasbeenmakingacomebackinareasinwhichtheoriginal comunidadeshadmanagedtoresistdominationbythecattleraisinghaciendas. Insomeoftheotherrelativelylargegroups,suchastheMoxosandtheChiquitanosoftheold colonialJesuitreducciones,therearemarkedstatisticaldiscrepanciesbetweenthe1976census andtheestimatesoftheethnologistsspecializingintheOriente.Asidefromthecertaintyof technicalerrors,thecensusprobablyindicatesthatinthesegroupslanguagedoesnothaveas centralaplaceasotherculturaltraits(e.g.,ceremoniesanddances)forthemaintenanceof identity.Itmustalsoberememberedthatthepresentculturalidentityofthesegroupsisactuallya relativelyrecentamalgamtheproductofnewfusionsinthecolonialenvironmentofthe reduccion. EffortstoorganizethesenativegroupshaverecentlytakenplaceintheOriente,buttheyhavenot yetreachedthelevelofimportanceachievedbysimilarattemptsinotherSouthAmerican countries.Ontheotherhand,theseeffortsmorethanelsewherehavehadsomecontactswith thechieforganizationrepresentingtheentirepeasantry.Thishasperhapsbeenfacilitatedbythe factthattheAymaraleadershipofthisorganizationfosterstheunderstandingoftheethnic dimensionsoftheproblemsintheOriente. BILINGUALANDINTERCULTURALEDUCATION DespitethepluriculturalcharacterofBolivia,theusualpracticeineducationhasbeentoignore theproblemandtosimplyimposethelanguageandcultureofthedominantgroups.Therehave occasionallybeensomeinitiativesandevendecreesfavoringtheuseandteachingofvernacular languages,butthesehaveprovedtoberhetoricalgestures.Becauseofstrongeconomicand ideologicalpressures,thestatusquohascontinuedinforce.Thus,tothisdaythealmostuniversal practicehasbeentheteachingof,andinsistenceon,Spanishthroughouttheschoolsystemfrom preprimarytotheuniversity,inboththecityandthecountry.Inruralareas,eventheuseofa vernacularispunishable. Atvarioustimes,however,severalcounterattemptsafewofwhichweregovernmentalbutthe majorityprivatehavebeenmadetodevelopeducationalprogramsthatmorecloselyreflectthe sociolinguisticandculturalrealityofthecountry.Theserefreshinginnovations,whichhave occurredparticularlyinthefieldofnonformaladulteducation,willbethemainfocusofthis section. EducationandReligion Historically,thegreatprecursorofeducationinthematernallanguagewasthemissionaryeffort. Atthebeginningofthecolonialperiod,thefirstprintedbookswereinvariablycollectionsof sermonsandotherreligioustexts,inadditiontogrammarsandvocabulariesforthetrainingof newmissionaries.Inmanyrespects,someoftheseworks,suchasthevariouslyreprintedAymara vocabulary 100

ofBertonio(1612),havenotlosttheirtimeliness.AsinventoryoftheprincipalQuechuaand Aymarabibliography(Rivet,195155)showsthatinthefirstcenturyfortyreligiousworks (twentyfiveQuechua,fifteenAymara)andtwentyfivelinguisticworks(nineteenQuechua,six Aymara)wereproduced.Amongthemmentionisalsomadeofa"cartillaquechuacastellano" (QuechuaSpanishprimer)withsixthousandcopies.Thus,acertaindegreeofimportancewas accordedtheuseofthevernacular;however,theemphasisoftheperioddoesnotallowthesame tobesaidforotherculturalmanifestations.Preachingwasdoneinthematernallanguage,butin otherareas"seextirpabalaidolatria"(idolatrywaseradicated). Inthesecondcolonialperiod,ethusiasmandproductiondeclined.Eveninthegreatrebellionof 1780theonlyrecordedworkwasthedrama,Ollantay,whichwaspreparedbythepriest,Antonio Valdes,andperformedfortheKurakarebel,TupaqAmaru. Inthenineteenthandespeciallyinthetwentiethcenturies,religiousmotivesagainstimulatedan increaseinoutput.VariousProtestantgroupshavenowtakentheinitiative,amongwhichthe BibleSocietiesandmorerecently,theSummerInstituteofLinguisticsareprominent.The majorityoftheirmaterialsarepurelyreligious,althoughtherearealsosomelinguisticones;in addition,anewconcernformaternallanguageliteracyisdeveloping.WiththeSummerInstitute ofLinguistics,inparticular,productionhasexpandedtoincludevariousregionsandminority culturesoftheOriente(aswellastheChipaya).Aselsewhere,theInstitutehasbeensubjectto controversybecauseofitsfundamentalistoutlookandpresumedconnectionstolessdevout NorthAmericaninterests,althoughithasneverhadseriousdifficultyinremaininginBolivia. OntheCatholicside,therewasanoccasionalpioneer,forexample,theOruropriest,Carlos FelipeBeltran,whopublishednumerouseducationalpamphletsinQuechuainthenineteenth century;butasawhole,activitywaslimitedtoreprintingorimprovingcatechismsand collectionsofsongs,and,occasionally,alinguisticwork.Thewidespreaduseofnativelanguages inruralpastoralwork,aswellastheproductionanduseofmoreseculareducationalmaterials, hasonlybeenmorefullyundertakeninrecentdecades.Forexample,fiveeditionsofaCatholic religioussongbookinAymara,inwhichthemajorityofthecompositionsarebypeasants,have beenpublished.Inthelatestedition,whichhas250pages,onehundredandtwentythousand copieswereprinted. The"Indigenist"Phase Themonopolyheldinthisfieldbyreligiousinstitutionshasbeengraduallydisappearing.Bythe WarofIndependence(181025)theprincipalspeechesofthepatriotsweretranslatedinto AymaraandQuechua;oneofthesetranslationsisattributedtoJuanWallpaRimachi,awell knownQuechuapoetandpartisan.Severaldecadeslater,inthemiddleoftheculturallyromantic, butpoliticallyliberal,era,apainfulparadoxoccurred:ontheonehand,thecomunarios(mem 101

bersofthecomunidades)sufferedthepillagingoftheirlands;ontheother,theproductionofpoetry, popularsongcollections,stories,andeverpedagogicalproposalsinfavoroftheIndianbeganto flourishinAndeanlanguages.Thenotablepoetandwriter,FranzTamayo,illustratesthisparadox. AlthoughhevigorouslydefendedtheIndianinhisclassicPedagogiaNacional,heisremembered byhisformerpeonsandtheirdescendantsasadespoticpatron.Itneverceasestobeironicthatthe themeof"Indianeducation"reappearsperiodicallyinthepresswheneveranewuprisingoccurs.At thebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,duringtheliberalera,newpedagogicalcurrentscameto Bolivia.TheirmainproponenthiredbythegovernmentwastheBelgian,GeorgeRouma,who measuredthecraniumsofHaciendaIndiansinhissparetimeinordertoverifythetheoriesof SocialDarwinismtheninvogue(Demelas,1981).Inthemidstofthesecontradictions,therearose thefirstruralschools,firstinthemestizotownsandthen,littlebylittle,insomeofthecomunidades (Montoya,1983). Twoeffortsdeserveexplicitmention.Thefirst,andbetterknown,isthatofProfessorElizardo Perez,whoagainstallodds,succeededinestablishingtheindigenousschoolatHuarisata,onthe AymaraAltiplano,in1931.Shortlyafter,heextendedtheexperimenttootherregionsofthe Altiplano,toUcurenainCochabambaDepartmentandtoCasarabe,amongtheSirionoofBeni Department.ElizardoPrez(1962)acknowledgedimportantculturalfeatures:helocatedthe schoolsoutsideofnonIndiantowns,andhemodeledhissystem,consistingofanuclearschool surroundedbyaclusterofsatelliteschools,onthetraditionalayulluorganization.Buthedidnot grasptheimportanceofeducationinthematernallanguage.Hispedagogicalgoalandmediumof instructionwasSpanish(Huacanietal.,1978).Thesecondeffort,almostforgotten,isbeing rescuedthankstonewresearchbyhistoriansfromthegroup,MemoriaComunitariaAymara.Inthe yearsfrom1910to1930,therearoseanimportantmovementofcaciques,traditionalAymara leaders,whofoughtsimultaneouslyforthedefenseoftheirlandsandfortheestablishmentof schoolsintheircommunities.Someoftheseleadersandtheitinerantteacherstheyhiredsuffered frompersecution,andfinallytheeffortwasbroughttoahaltbytheChacoWarof1932.However, thiswastheprecursorofmassparticipatoryeducation. MassEducationandLiteracy ThenextphaseopenedaftertheChacodefeat(1935)withtheriseofanewnationalpolitical venturefocusingontheintegrationofthe"Indian."Themaincontroversyatthattimewasbetween thosewhothoughtthatthisprimarilyinvolvedreturninglands,andthemoreconservativeelement whothoughtthattheIndianshouldfirstbesubjectedtotheslowprocessof"education."Bothsides sharedtheconventionalbeliefthatthiseducationhadtobeimpartedinthedominantlanguageand culture(Spanish)inorderforfullintegrationtooccur,andbothwereassimilationist.Nevertheless, inthefirstdecadethefewattemptsatruraleducationareofinterestinthattheyrepresenta challengetotheelitist 102

educationandpoliticsofthepast.Forexample,inUcurena,wherethefirstpeasantsyndicatewas formedimmediatelyaftertheChacoWarwiththesupportoftheHuarisataschool,thebirthof thestruggleforlandandassociatedproductiveactivitiesoccurredsimultaneously.Whenthe landownersseizedthelandsagainafewyearslater,theschoolnotonlytaughtthechildrenbut wasalsothetrainingcenterforsyndicalismfortheirparents.There,too,instructionwasin Spanish,butsocialevents(suchassociodramas)withastrongsocialcontenttookplacein Quechua(Dandler,1984). MassruraleducationwasinitiatedwiththetriumphoftheMNR(MovimientoNacionalista RevolucionarioNationalistRevolutionaryMovement)Revolutionin1952andthepromulgation ofthe1953AgrarianReformLaw.Intwentyyears,thenumberofsmallruralschoolsquintupled. Therateofilliteracy(minimallydefined)declinedfrom68percentin1950to32percentin1976. GreaterknowledgeofSpanishhasalsoresultedfromthismassiveeffort.However,withrapid expansioncameasharpdeclineinquality.Theruralschoolandteacherastatesalaried bureaucratwereconvertedintothelastlinkinthepenetrationofthesystemandstatusquointhe countryside.Ontheculturallevel,thisfosteredtheimitationofeverythingHispanicandurban bothdirectly,andperhapsevenmoreeffectivelyimplicitlythroughtheattitudesoftheteachers, andtherebymarkedtheattitudesandaspirationsofthepeasantswithescapismandevenconflict andtrauma.Theiridentity,asshapedbypersonalandculturalexperience,founditselfatvariance withwhattheschooladvocated.Inorderto"besomething,"itwasnecessarytoabandonwhat theyalreadywere.Variousadultliteracycampaignsproposedinthesedecadessufferedfromthe samemisdirection(Subiratsetal.,1978). Duringthesameperiodtherewerealsovariousprivateeffortswhichstressedliteracy consideredtobethegatewaytoeveryopportunity.Almosteveryinitiativewasconnectedtoa religiousinstitution,andinseveralcases,thematernallanguagedidinfactconstitutethepointof departure.ThetwoprincipalProtestanteffortswere(andstillare)ALFALITandCALA.Eachof theseisbasedonthematernallanguageandhaspreparedmaterialsforbothchildrenandadults whichemphasizereadingmechanicsratherthancontent.Inaddition,CALA(Comisionde AlfabetizacionyLiteraturaAymaraAymaraCommissionforLiteracyandLiterature),whichis connectedtotheSummerInstituteofLinguistics(SIL)hasproducedmanyreaders,particularly biblicaltexts.SILhasalsoproducedotherliteracymaterialsinvariouslanguagesoftheOriente. AmongCatholics,themainefforthasfollowedadifferentroute:theradio.Anetworkofradio schoolsforadults,calledERBOL,hascomeintobeing.AtpresenttherearefourintheAymara region,fourintheQuechuaregion,andthreeintheOriente,althoughthoseintheOrienteuse mainlySpanish.Atfirst,thesestationswerelittlemorethanamplifiersforakindofschool teachinginwhichtheteachersinquasischoolroomsassistedthestationfromafarbyfollowing thelessonsgivenbyradiototheletter,allatthesametimeandatthesamepace.Theselessons werefrequentlygiveninboththematernallanguageandinSpanish;however,only 103

afewstationsprovidedwrittenmaterialsinthevernacular.AnotherrecentCatholicendeavorfor childrenhasbeenthepreparationofbilingualtextsfortheearlyprimaryyears. Inthe1970s,innovationintheareaofbilingualeducationalsooccurredwithintheofficial educationalsystem.ForsometimeanagencyoftheMinistryofEducationhasbeenresponsible foradultliteracyandeducation.Withcreativestaffingthisagencyhascarriedoutrelevant activities,althoughthathasnotoftenhappened.However,duringthe1970s,theU.S.Agencyfor InternationalDevelopmentpromotedprogramsinbilingualeducationforQuechuachildren similartoprogramsputintoeffectinEcuadorandPeru.Thegovernment(whichatthesametime wasturningdownotherlocalprojectsbasedonthematernallanguage)acceptedthispackage becauseitinvolvedseveralmilliondollarsworthofaid.Asaresult,RuralEducationProjectI cameintobeingintheCochabambavalleysandhighlands.Goodinstructionalmaterialsin Quechua(adaptedfromasimilarprojectinAyacucho,Peru)wereproduced,buttheproject sufferedfromthesameproblemsasitscouterpartsinothercountriesthatis,becauseit originatedintheunwieldybureaucracyoftheruraleducationalsystemandtheagenciesofthe MinistryofEducation,itdidnotsucceedininterestingteachersinamethodologysodifferent fromthetraditionalperspective(Montoya,1983). TowardMassEducation Inthesameperiod,anewprogramwasbeingproposedwhichwentbeyondsimpleliteracytoa participatoryeducationmuchmoreresponsivetotheoverallneedsofadults.Thistime,too,the initiativewasfromtheprivatesector,andonlylaterdiditbecomepartofthegovernment program. Thepioneersofthenewoutlookhaveprobablybeenthenumerousprivateinstitutionsforrural advancementwhichhavebeenproliferatinginrecentyears.Themajorityhavenotdealtwith literacybuthaveconcentratedonmorespecifictasks,forexample,agriculturalproduction, health,theadvancementofwomen,andorganization.Foreachofthesetasks,however,some typeofeducationalprogramimmediatelybecomesnecessary.Intheseprogramsincorporationof thelanguageandcultureoftheparticipantshasprovedtobeindispensableforsuccess. Permanentwrittenmaterialshavenotalwaysbeenrequired;whenproduced,theyareoften writteninSpanish,astheyareforadultsliterateinonlythatlanguage.Incontrast,audiovisual aidsoftenusethenativelanguage.Severaloftheseinstitutionshavealsofelttheneedtorelyon theexistingradiostations,wheretheyalmostalwaysusethematernallanguage.Beyondthese generalcharacteristics,thereisawiderangingandoftencreativevarietyintheideologicaland methodologicalapproaches. TheERBOLradionetworkhasalsobeenevolving.Atfirst,theprogrammingformatutilizedthe methodsofGilbertoFreyre,withhisstressongroupdiscussionoftopicsreflectingthekey interestsoftheparticipants.Later,formatsmoresuitabletoradiospeechwereadopted,for example,talkshowswithaudienceparticipation.Ofrecentcreationisanetworkof"people's" reporterswhope 104

riodicallyformachainonalltheERBOLstationstoreportonanddiscusseventsinvariousrural areasaswellasinlowerclassurbanandminingsectors.Interestingmultilateralexchangesare thusgeneratedamongvarioussocial,culturalandlinguisticsettings. Sincetheestablishmentofademocraticgovernmentattheendof1982,anewplanforthe systematiceducationofadults,ratherthanchildrenandadolescents,hasbeeninpreparationon thegovernmentalleveltheServicioNacionaldeAlfabetizacionyEducacionPopular (SENELEP)(NationalServiceforLiteracyandMassEducation),whichissupportedby UNESCOandotherinternationalinstitutions.Amongotherthings,itsformalproposal emphasizesthefollowing:thenecessityfortheentireeducationalprocesstobecontrolledbythe peopleconcernedandtheirorganizations,ratherthanbytheruralteachingprofessionandother outsiders(whowouldbelimitedtoaidingandadvising);theFreyrenotionofstressawarenessof theproblemsofeachgroup;themerelysubordinateroleofliteracy,properlyspeaking,inrelation tobroadertasksalsoaffectingthealreadyliterate;theneedtousediversechannels,suchasdirect contact,contests,andmasscommunicationmedia;andtheinterculturalandbilingualcharacter ofalleducation.Uptonowthemainactivityhasfocusedonthedesignanddevelopmentof materials.Tworeaders,whichalsoincorporatemanyindigenoussocialandculturalfeatures, havealreadybeenpreparedforAymaraandQuechua,respectively,asaresultofvarious workshopsandseminarsinwhichpeasants,teachers,andrepresentativesofvariouspreviously mentionedinstitutionsparticipated.Anancillarydevelopment,bynomeansnegligible,hasbeen theofficialadoptionofa"singlealphabet"forthetwomainAndeanlanguages,containingthe principalfeaturesofeach.Thisresultedfromdiscussionsamongsometwentyinstitutionsand specialists;however,inlightoftheemotionalfactorsandexistingpracticesconnectedwiththis subject,itisnotcertainthatthemuchneededunificationwillbesuccessful.Priorattemptsin 1954and1968metwithfailure. Theforegoingsuggestsanoptimisticoutcomewithrespecttothefuture.Itisnevertheless necessarytoconcludeonanoteofcaution.Thealmostchroniceconomicandpolitical difficultiesofBoliviahinderthecontinuityandcompletionofmanyprojects,especiallythose thatdependongovernmentalentities.Furthermore,mostoftheinnovationsofinterestare concernedwithadulteducation;littleheadwayhasbeenmadeintheproblemsraisedby bilingualismandinterculturalismfortheeducationofchildrenandyouth.In1984,the governmentdecreedtheobligatoryteachingofAndeanlanguagesatthesecondarylevel,butthe indicationstodatesuggestthatthisdecreewillnotbeenforced.Moreover,therearenosignsof changeinthecurrentinsistenceoneducationwhichissolelyinSpanishandforSpanishinthe ruralsector. BIBLIOGRAPHY AlbXavier.1974."Losmilrostrosdelquechua."Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. (OriginalthesisinEnglish.)CornellUniversity,1970. 105

.1980.LenguaysociedadenBolivia,1976.LaPaz:InstitutoNacionaldeEstadstica. .1981.Idiomas,escuelasyradiosenBolivia.3ded.LaPaz:UNITASACLO.Alb,Xavier, TomsGreaves,andGodofredoSandval.1983.Chukiyawu,lacaraaymaradeLaPaz.Vol.3, Cabalgandoentredosmundos.LaPaz:CIPCA. AndeanLinguisticsNewsletter.PublicadasucesivamenteenlasuniversidadesdeWisconsin, IllinoisyNewMexico.PosteriormentellamadaCorreodeLungsticaAndina. BertonioLudovico.1612.Vocabulariodelalenguaaymara.Juli(Ultimaedicin,Cochabamba: CERESMUSEFIFEA,1984.) BouysseCassagneTherese.1976."TributosyetnasenCharcasenlapocadelvirreyToledo." HistoriayCultura(LaPaz)2:97113. .1978."L'espaceaymara:urcoetuma."Annales(Paris)33,5:105780. 1980."Leshommesd'enhaut.Rapportssociauxetestructuresspatiotemporelleschezles aymaras(VXXVIesicles)."Ph.D.thesis,Paris,Ecoledeshautesetudesensciencessociales. BriggsLucyT.1976."DialectalVariationintheAymaraLanguageofBoliviaandPeru."Ph.D. thesis,Gainesville,UniversityofFlorida. .1979."ACriticalSurveyoftheLiteratureontheAymaraLanguage."LatinAmerican ResearchReview14,3:87106. .1981.Missionary,patron,andradioAymara.InTheAymaraLanguageinItsSocialand CulturalContext,ed.M.J.Hardman.Gainesville:UniversityPressesofFlorida. CalzavariniLorenzoG.1980.Nacinchiriguana,grandezyocaso.LaPaz:LosAmigosdel Libro. CorreodeLingsticaAndina.ed.GarlandD.Bills.UniversityofNewMexico,Albuquerque (VerAndeanLinguisticsNewsletter). DandlerJorge.1969."ElsindicalismocampesinoenBolivia:Loscambiosestructuralesen Ucurea."Mxico:InstitutoIndigenistaInteramericano.M.A.andPh.D.thesis,Universityof Wisconsin,Madison,1967,1971;Nuevaedicin,Cochabamba:CERES,1984. DemelasM.Danielle.1981."Darwinismoalacriolla:EldarwinismosocialenBolivia." HistoriaBoliviana(Cochabamba)1,2:5582. DenevanWilliamM.1966.TheAboriginalCulturalGeographyoftheLlanosdeMojosof Bolivia.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.(Iberoamericana,no.48.Vrsioncastellano:LaPaz: Juventud,1980.) EscobarAlberto,ed.1972.ElretodelmultilingsmoenelPer.Lima:InstitutodeEstudios Peruanos.

HardmanMarthaJ.1978."LafamilialingsticaandinaJaqi:Jaqaru,Kawki,Aymara."Vicus Cuyadernos,Lingstica(Amsterdam)2:528. .1979."QuechayAymara:Lenguasencontacto."Antropologa(LaPaz)1. .Inpress."JaqiAru:Lenguahumana."InRacesdeAmrica:MundoAymara,ed.X.Alb. UNESCOSigloXXI. .ed.1981.TheAymaraLanguageinItsSocialandCulturalContext.Gainesville:University PressesofFlorida. HuacaniCarlos,J.Subirats,B.Ledesma,andJ.E.Mamani.1978."WarisataEscuelaAyllu."El porqudeunfracaso.LaPaz:CEBIAE. HuancaL.,Toms.1984."Ladesestructuracindelosespaciossocioeconmicosandinosenel Altiplanolacustre:Agresincolonialyresistenciacomunitaria." 106

enelAltiplanolacustre:Agresincolonialyresistenciacomunitaria."Ph.D.thesis,LaPaz, UniversidadMayorSanAndrs. KlossH.,andG.D.McConnell,eds.1979.LinguisticCompositionoftheNationsofthe World/Compositionlinguistiquedesnationsdumonde.III.CentralandSouthAmerica/L'Amrique Centraleetl'AmriqueduSud.Quebec:LesPressesdel'UniversitLaval,CIRB/ICRB. MontoyaM.Victor.1983."Laeducacinbilingeenlosproyectosintegrados."InEducacin, etnasydescolonizacinenAmricaLatina,ed.N.E.MasferrerRodrguez,andR.Vargas.Una guiaparalaeducacinbilingeintercultural.Mxico:UNESCOandInstitutoIndigenista Interamericano.Vol.1,5782. MorenoGabrielRen.1888.CatlogodelarchivodeMojosyChiquitos.SantiagodeChile.2ded. IntroductionandnotesbyHernandoSanabria.LaPaz:Juventud,1974. MurraJohnV.1975.Formacioneseconmicasypolticasdelmundoandino.Lima:Institutode EstudiosPeruanos. ParejasAlcides.1976.HistoriadeMoxosyChiquitosafinesdelsigloXVIII.LaPaz:Instituto BolivianodeCultura. PrezElizardo.1962.Warisata,laescuelaayllu.LaPaz:Burillo. PlattTristan.Inpress."Elpensamientopolticoaymara."InRacesdeAmrica:MundoAymara, ed.X.Alb.UNESCOSigloXX. PlazaPedro.1975."Algunosaspectosdeladiscriminacinlingsticaysocial."InAnalesdelaI ReunindeAntropologadelospasesdelreaandina.LaPaz:InstitutoBolivianodeCultura. ,ed.1977.LingsticayEducacin.IIICongresodeLenguasNacionales.LaPaz:Instituto BolivianodeCultura. RiesterJrgen.1975.IndiansofEasternBolivia:AspectsofTheirPresentSituation.Copenhagen: IWGIADocument18.(ParcialmentereproducidoencastellanoenJ.Riester,Enbuscadelaloma santa.LaPaz:AmigosdelLibro,1976.) RivetPaul,andG.deCrquiMonfort.195155.Bibliographiedeslanguesaymaretkiua.Paris: Musedel'Homme.4vols. SaignesThierry.1974."Unefrontirefossile.LacordillerechiriguanoauXVIIIesicle."Thesis, Paris,EcolePratiquedesHautesEtudes. SanabriaHernando.1965.ElhablapopulardelaprovinciadeVallegrande.SantaCruzdela Sierra:UniversidadGabrielRenMoreno. SENALEP.1984.PlanNacionaldeAlfabetizacinyEducacinPopular,prof.ElizardoPrez. PropuestaTcnica.LaPaz:MinisteriodeEducacinyCultura. SubiratsJos.1983."Unaexperienciadeeducacinintercomunitariarural."InEducacin,etnasy descolonizacinenAmricaLatina,ed.N.Rodrguezetal.Unaguiaparalaeducacinbilinge intercultural.Mxico:UNESCOInstitutoIndigenistaInteramericano. ToreroAlfredo.1965."Losdialectosquechuas."Analescientficosdelauniversidadagraria2,4: 44678. .1970."Lingsticaehistoriadelasociedadandina."Analescientifcosdelauniversidad agraria7,3:23164. .1974.Elquechuaylahistoriasocialandina.Lima:UniversidadRicardoPalma.Vanden HansBerg.1980.Materialbibliogrficoparaelestudiodelosaymaras,callawayas,chipayas, urus.Cochabamba:ISET.3vols.

107

WachtelNathan.1978."Hommesd'eau:Leproblmeuru(XVIesiecle)."Annales(Paris)33,5: 112759. YapitaJuandeDios.1977."Discriminacinlingsticayconflictosocial."LaPaz:Museo NacionaldeEtnografayFolklore. .Inpress."Laafirmacinculturalaymara."InRacesdeAmrica:MundoAymara,ed.X. Alb.UNESCOSigloXXI. 108

6 THECELTICLANGUAGESINTHEBRITISHISLES NancyC.Dorian Atthepresentday,threeCelticlanguagessurviveasmothertongueswithinrestricted populationsintheBritishIsles.TheseareWelsh,IrishGaelic,andScottishGaelic;theyare spoken,respectively,inWales,NorthernIrelandandtheRepublicofIreland,andtheHighlands ofScotland.InnoneoftheseareasistheCelticlanguagenumericallydominant,andonlyinthe RepublicofIreland(Eire)doesaCelticlanguagehavesignificant,stronglyfundedgovernment support. ThethreesurvivingCelticlanguagesareremnantsofamuchlargerlinguisticgroup.Celticisan independentbranchoftheIndoEuropeanfamilyoflanguages,andatonetime(roughly800B.C. to100B.C.[Filip,1981:3446])theCeltswerethedominantpopulationofWesternandCentral Europe.TheirgeographicaldistributioneventuallyextendedintotheIberianPeninsulaand centralItaly,andatleastasfareastasBohemia,Moravia,andSilesia,andevenatonepoint TransylvaniaandBulgaria(Filip,1981:40).OneCelticpopulation(theGalatianstowhomPaul addressedtheletterwhichappearsasabookoftheNewTestament)establisheditselfasfartothe southandeastasAsiaMinor.TheCeltsalsoexpandedintotheBritishIsles,whereallofthe Celticlanguagesthatremaintodaytookform:evenBreton,spokeninBrittanyinFrance,was takentoitspresentContinentallocationbyBritishCeltsduringtheperiodofturmoiland conquestatthehandsofGermanictribesaftertheRomansabandonedtheirBritishcolonyinthe earlyyearsofthefifthcenturyA.D.(Chadwick,1970:81).AttheirpeaktheCeltswerepowerful enoughtoposeathreattoGreeceandRome.TheysackedRomeinca.390B.C.andattacked Delphiin279B.C.(CorcoraninChadwick,1970:38).Theirmetalworkwassuperb,whichgave themexcellentweaponry,anditwascharacterizedaswellbyoutstandingdecorationandartistic design(Cunliffe,1979:2425).TheCeltswereindeclineby 109

roughlytheendofthesecondcenturyB.C.,however,anddeclinehascontinuedtobethefateofthe Celticpeoplesandtheirlanguagesuptothepresenttime.(Forcartographicexpositionofthe expansionandcontractionofCelticpopulationsintheancientworld,seeMcEvedy,1967:28ff.) TheCelticlanguagefamilyintheBritishIslesisrepresentedbytwobranches:Brythonicand Goidelic(sometimesknownasPCelticandQCeltic,respectively,afteramajorlinguisticfeature distinguishingthetwobranches).Thetwobranchesarenotmutuallyintelligible.Welshisa BrythonicCelticlanguage;itsonlycloselivingrelativeisBreton,buttheseparationintimeand spacehasbeensuchthatWelshandBretonarenotmutuallyintelligibleeither.Cornish,extinctasa mothertonguesincetheendoftheeighteenthcentury(Ellis,1974:95124),wasBrythonic,andso weretheCelticdialectsofsouthernBritainwhichdiedoutunderthesuccessiveimpactofRoman andAngloSaxoninvasionsandoccupation.IrishGaelicisaGoidelicCelticlanguage;Scottish GaelicisanoffshootfromitandisthereforelikewiseGoidelic.Manx,whichperishedasatrue mothertongueasrecentlyasthe1970s,wasalsoahistoricaldevelopmentoutofIrishGaelicandso Goidelicaswell. InmodernusagethetwoformsofGaelic,IrishandScottish,areusuallydistinguishedbyterming theonesimplyIrishandtheothersimplyGaelic.Thispracticewillbeadoptedforthemostpartin thischapter,althoughwherequotationsorhistoricalreferencesusethetermGaelicindiscriminately itwillbenecessarytoaddtheadditionalqualifyingterm.WhereGaelicisintendedasacoverterm forbothlivingGoidelicspeechforms,thiswillbestatedormadeclearfromcontext.Wherethetwo formsofGaelicaredeliberatelycomparedorcontrastedwitheachother,theidentifyinglabelswill routinelybeattached. NogenerallyvalidstatementcanbemadeaboutthemutualintelligibilityofIrishGaelicand ScottishGaelic.ThenorthernmostdialectsofIrishGaelicandthesouthernmostdialectsofScottish Gaelicaremutuallyintelligible,andresidentsofthesouthernmostislandsintheInnerHebrides sometimeschosetolistentoRadioEireannbroadcastsinsteadofBBCbroadcastsinScottishGaelic becausetheyunderstandtheIrishaseasilyormoreeasily(personalcommunication).Theofficially promotedformofIrishisratherofthecentralvarietythanthenorthern,andisconsequentlyless readilyunderstoodbyspeakersofanyvarietyofScottishGaelic.AttheextremesoftheGoidelic speecharea,southerndistrictsofIrelandandnortherndistrictsoftheScottishHighlands, intelligibilityiseitherminimalorabsent,usuallythelatter. HISTORICALBACKGROUND ThelossofautonomyamongtheCelticpopulationsintheBritishIsleswasgradualandpiecemeal. Sincethehistoryofretreatwasdifferentineacharea,thehistoryofmarginalizationwasalso differentineacharea.SodifferenthavebeenthedevelopmentsandoutcomesforIreland,Scotland, andWales,despitecertaingeneralsimilarities,thatitseemspreferabletodealwitheachseparately. 110

Ireland Inanumberofrespects,Irelandrepresentsthemostextremecaseamongthoseunderconsideration. ItwasleastaffectedbycontactswithRomancivilizationintheearlyperiod,anditwasbyfarthe mostfortunateinthepreservationofthematerialsfromthefloweringofitsownearlyCeltic tradition,amongthemlegal,poetic,artistic,andmythologicalmaterials.ThestrongestHighland ScottishchallengetoEnglishhegemonycameverylate,chronologically,andtheWelshthreatwas relativelyearlyandeasilydisposedof.TheIrishchallengewasmoreseriousandmorepersistent overtime;forthesereasons,theweightofEnglishpoliticalandmilitaryforcefellmostheavilyon Irelandformanycenturies.AllofthesefactshaveabearingonthemoderndaypositionoftheIrish language. Bysimplifyingonagrandscale,onemightpointtoreligionasthesinglemostimportantfactorin themorethanfourcenturiesofEnglishstruggletosecurecontroloverIreland.Therewere,of course,problemspriortoHenryVIII'sbreakwithRomeintheearlysixteenthcentury.Someofthe nativeIrishprinces,aswellassomeofthegreatAngloIrishfamiliesproducedbythepartial NormanconquestofIrelandinthetwelfthandthirteenthcenturies,hadshownadisturbingtendency toflaunttheirownautonomyandpayinsufficientattentiontotheclaimsoftheEnglishCrown.In addition,Ireland'smostpowerfulleadershadsupportedthelosingYorkistsideintheWarsofthe Roses,sothatIrelandwasregardedashostilebytheTudormonarchswhoarosefromLancastrian victoryinthatstruggle. Nonetheless,theunwillingnessofIrelandtoacceptProtestantismandtoabandonitsallegiancetoa ChurchadheredtobyEngland'sContinentalCatholicenemieswasapivotalfactorinthealienation ofthetwopeoplesandintheEnglishdeterminationtoneutralizeIreland,wheneverpossible,asa potentialallyofFranceandSpain.FromthisneedforsecurityagainstahostileCatholicallianceon itsleftflank,sotospeak,arosethedeterminationofElizabethanEnglandtosuppressthegreat UlsterearlHughO'Neillandhisallies,andtheschemeto"plant"UlsterwithProtestants,sincethe IrishrefusedtoturnProtestantthemselves.FromtheEnglishrefusaltodistinguishbetweenthe"Old English"Catholics(descendantsoftheNormanswhohadfirstextendedEnglishruletoIreland)and nativeIrishCatholics,asmeasureswereincreasinglytakentohandicapCatholicsinpoliticaland economiclife,arosealliancesandrebellionsamongallCatholicsinIrelandagainstEnglishrule. Cromwell'sinvasionofIrelandrepresentedaProtestantconquestofaCatholicenemy,andinits aftermathIrelandemergedwithanEnglishProtestantupperclassandanimpoverishedIrish peasantry.IrishsupportoftheCatholicsuccessionoftheexiledJamesIIbroughtaboutinvasionand defeatbytheProtestantforcesofWilliamofOrangeandusheredintheageofthePenalLaws (16911778),aperiodwhenCatholicswerebitterlyoppressedbyanIrishParliamentnowaltogether Protestant.Bythelateeighteenthcentury,despitethefactthatthePenalLawshadlargelybeen 111

repealed,thesubjectionofIrelandtooppressiverulebyEnglandandbyanIrishParliament controlledfromEnglandhadresultedintheemergenceofawidespreadspiritofrebelliousnessin Ireland.Forthefirsttimeinseveralcenturies,CatholicIrishmenandagoodmanyProtestant IrishmenwereunitedbyacommonoppositiontotheEnglish. FromthispointinIrishhistoryonwards,religionplayedalessimportantroleintheIrish"troubles" exceptinUlster,wherereligiousdivisionscoincidedwithculturaldivisionsbetweenIrishofall backgroundsandtheLowlandScotswhoseethnicpatternshadprevailedsincethetimeofthe seventeenthcenturyPlantation.ThepotatoblightfaminewhichdevastatedtheIrishpopulationin themidnineteenthcenturyfellmostfatallyonthenativeIrishpoor,buttosomeextentthelesser Protestantlandownersweredistressedaswell. IntheyearsaftertherepealofmostofthePenalLawsin1778,thesentimentfavoringmore autonomyforIreland,orevenindependentexistenceasaseparatecountry,graduallygrew.The leadersofthevariouspoliticalmovementsarguingandsometimesfightingfortheseviewpoints included,verysignificantly,bothCatholicsandProtestants.WolfeTone,whospearheadedthe UnitedIrishmenandfinallybroughtFrenchtroopstoIrelandtoaidtheircausein1798,wasa Protestant.Thus,byanironyEngland'sgreatfearofanalliancebetweenCatholicIrelandand CatholicFrancewasrealizedinthisinstanceundertheleadershipofanIrishProtestant.Daniel O'Connell,thepreeminentvoiceinIrishstrugglesforautonomyinthethefirsthalfofthenineteenth century,wasaCatholic;butIsaacButt,whotookupthehomerulebattleinthelatterpartofthe samecentury,wasaProtestant,aswasCharlesStewartParnell,whosooneclipsedButtpoliticallyin thesamecause.MichaelDavitt,whojoinedParnellintheleadershipoftheIrishNationalLand League,wasanIrishCatholicraisedinEngland(MoodyandMartin,1967:23884). AllthirtytwocountiesinIrelandachieveddominionstatusbytreatyin1921,aftertwoyearsofwar, andtheIrishFreeStatewascreated.ButthesixcountiesofNorthernIrelandweregrantedthe optionofwithdrawingfromtheIrishFreeStateandchoosingunionwiththeUnitedKingdom, whichtheypromptlydid.Intheremainingcounties,acivilwarlastingtwoyearswasfoughtover theacceptabilityofthetreatysignedin1921andthedivisionoftheislandintotwopoliticalunits. TheFreeStateandNorthernIrelandcontinuedasintheagreementsofthe1920s,however,andthe changeoverfromdominionstatustorepublicstatuswasachievedforthetwentysixcountiesonlyin 1937.TheRepublicofIreland(Eire)istodaythesoleformerlyCelticterritoryintheBritishIslesto haveachievedpoliticalindependence. Scotland IfIrelandcametobedividedsociallybetweenCelts(largelythepeasantry)andnonCelts(the Protestantupperclass),ScotlandcameinsteadtobedividedgeographicallybetweenCelts(the Highlanders)andnonCelts(theLowlanders). 112

TheGaelicizationofScotlandbeganinthefifthcenturyA.D.withthearrivalofIrishconquerors andsettlers(theScots)inwhatisnowArgyll.TheindigenousPicts,whoseethnicidentityis uncertainbutprobablynotoriginallyCeltic,yieldedgraduallybeforetheScots;bywayofconquest, alliance,andmissionaryzealonbehalfofChristianity,theScotsbecamethedominantculturaland linguisticelement.Theyneverbecametheonlyculturalandlinguisticelementinthecountrywhich bearstheirethnicname,however.AlthoughPictishdiedout,andtheBrythonicCeltickingdomonce prominentinthesouthwestdisappeared,Anglianinfluencegrewinthesouthwestandspread westward,whileCelticScottishinfluenceandpowergrewtothenorth.Bytheseventhcentury,the linesoflinguisticandculturaldivisionwhichheldforcenturiesafterhadalreadysubstantially emerged.ThelowlandareashadcomeunderthedominationoftheGermanicAngliansandtheir language,onthewhole;thehigher,moremountainouspartsofthecountrywerethedomainofthe CelticScotsandtheirlanguage(Chadwick,1970:89). Theculturaldifferencesbetweenthetwoareaswerenotable,quiteapartfromlanguage.The Highlanderslivedundertheclansystem,practicingtranshumantpastoralismandcultivatinga warriorethos.TheLowlanders,intheirmorefertileandaccessibleregions,tookreadilytoclustered settlementpatternsandtheregularpracticeofagriculture.Sincethetwowaysoflifecameinto conflictoftenenoughwhereverthedifferentpopulationslivedinanyproximity,andthecattle raidingoftheHighlandersamongLowlandfarmerswasanotoriouscauseoffriction,hostility betweenthepopulationswasnotlongindeveloping. AlthoughreligionneverbecamethepersistentandirresolvabledivisivefactorwithinScotlandthatit wasinIreland'srelationswithEngland,itdidnonethelessplayamajorroleatacriticaltime.The ReformationgainedacceptanceintheLowlandsinthesixteenthcentury,butpartsoftheHighlands remainedCatholicunderclanchieftainswhodidnotembracethenewbeliefs.Thesupportofa numberofHighlandclansfortheCatholicStuartclaimantstothethroneofBritainagainstthe HanoverianlineusheredinwithGeorgeIwasessentialtothetwogreatfailedrisingsinthe Highlands,in1715and1745.Thelatter,thefamousbutunsuccessfulcampaignofPrinceCharles EdwardStuart("BonniePrinceCharlie"),ledtobrutalsuppressionofHighlandculture(clan leadership,Highlanddress,Highlandweaponry,thetraditionalmartialbagpipemusic,andeventhe language)inthewakeoftheHanoverianvictory. IntheHighlandsandintheHebrideanIslandsoffthewestcoast,averyCelticculturebasedonsuch valuesasawarrioraristocracyanditspatronageofpoetry,music,andgenealogyintheoralrather thanwrittenmodesurvivedevenlongerthaninIreland.Englishconquest,colonization,and politicaldominationhadseriouslydisruptedthewarrioraristocracyandthevaluesitcultivatedin IrelandbythetimeCromwell'ssoldiersandofficersbecametheIrishlandholdingclassinthemid seventeenthcentury.IntheCelticregionsofScotland,traditionalCelticlifeways,thoughoften enoughunderseverepressure,werenotsubjectedtorelentlesssuppressionuntilalmostacentury later,afterthe1745rising.In 113

theend,however,theoutcomeoftheconflictbetweenCelticandAngloSaxoncultureswasmuch thesameinbothareas. Politically,Scotland'slongtermfatewasquitedifferentfromIreland's.Irelandwasmadeapartof theUnitedKingdombyanactofunionpassedin1800.Bythislatedate,therehadbeenseveral centuriesofseriousconflictbetweenIrelandandEngland,andthestruggleforhomerule(and ultimatelyindependence)beganimmediately.TheactofunionwhichunitedtheScottishand Englishparliamentscamein1707,buttheunionoftheCrownsofScotlandandEnglandhadcome asearlyas1603,withthesuccessionofJamesVIofScotlandandIofEnglanduponthedeathof QueenElizabethI.ItwasakingalreadyinpowerinScotlandwhoinheritedtheEnglishCrownas well;thispreventedtheunionoftheCrownsfromappearinginthelightofanEnglishimpositionof poweroverScotland.AlthougheventheLowlandScotswereratherdifferentfromtheEnglishat thisperiodintheirpatternsofliving,theformofEnglishwhichtheyspoke,andtheiroverseas alliances,thegulfwhichdividedthemfromtheEnglishwasnotnearlyasunbridgeableasthegulf separatinganyCelticgroupfromanyAngloSaxongroupatthistime.Scotlandwasacountry sharplydividedinternallybetweentwocultures,eachwithitsowngeographicalbase.Therewasno revulsionoffeelingagainsttheEnglishamongthemassesofcommonpeoplethroughoutall Scotland,astherewasinIreland.Thus,itisnotsurprisingthatScotlandremainswithintheUnited Kingdomtoday,whereasallofIrelandexcepttheProtestantplantednorthhasdisengageditself fromthatpoliticalentity. Wales IntherelationsbetweenWalesandEngland,onefeaturethatwasminimizedintherelationsofthe otherCelticareaswithEnglandisalwaystothefore:proximity.IrelandhadtheexpanseoftheIrish Seaasabuffer,andtheHighlanderswerebufferedatleasttosomeextentbytheirdistancefromthe seatsoffirstLowlandScotsgovernance(Edinburgh)andthenEnglishgovernance(London);and, ofcourse,thedifficultiesoftheHighlandterrainbeforemodernroadandbridgebuildingmadethe word"remote"applywell,despitetherelativelysmalldistancesinvolved. TheWelshterrainpresenteddifficulties,too,tobesure.ButtheNormansoftheeleventhcentury conquestperioddidsucceedinpenetratinginmanypartsofWales,whereasAngloNormanpower firstreachedevenLowlandScotlandmorebywayofinvitation(undertheCanmorelineofScottish kings,heavilyalliedwithEngland)thanbyanyexerciseofmilitarypower.Englishhegemonywas extendedoverWalesasearlyasthelatethirteenthcentury.Itwaschallengedinthenexttwo centuries,mostnotablybytheWelshprinceOwenGlendowerintheearlyfifteenthcentury,but neverfullycastoff. Ironically,adevelopmentthatoriginallyrousedgreathopesofmoreautonomyfortheWelshproved fataltothosehopesintheevent:theriseoftheTudormonarchy.TheTudorsoriginatedinnorthwest Wales,butHenryTudorhada 114

claimontheEnglishthronethroughhismother'sline.TheWelshsupportedhimmilitarilyinthe BattleofBosworthField,whichwasdecisivefortheLancastrianvictoryintheWarsofthe RosesandbroughtHenrytothethrone. ItwasHenryVII'sson,however,whodealtthedeathblowtoWelshhopes.Farfromhonoring hisWelshheritageandfavoringthelandofhisforefathers,HenryVIIIwishedtoreduceWalesto politicalorderandeliminateculturalandlinguisticdifferencesbetweenhisdomains.TheActof Unioncamein1536,makingWalesthefirstoftheCelticareasbymorethanhalfacenturyto comedirectlyandfullyunderEnglishrule. ThisearlypoliticaldominationbyEngland,togetherwiththefactthatWalesdidfollowHenry VIIIintoProtestantism,hadtheeffectofsparingWalesthehostilityandsuspicionengenderedby possiblealliancewithEngland'sCatholicenemiesontheContinentandthevengeanceincurred byentryintosuchanallianceonthelosingside.OrdinaryWelshmenwereabletolivetheirlives outwithlessobviousinterferenceordirectthreattotheirtraditionallifewaysthantheir counterpartsinIrelandortheHighlands. ThegreatwaveofchangethateventuallybrokeoverWaleswasnottheresultofdramatic militarydefeatslikeHughO'Neill'satKinsaleortheJacobitefailuresattheBoyneandAughrim inIrelandandCullodeninHighlandScotland,buttheresultofeconomicdevelopment.Wales wasrichincoalandiron,andwiththeriseofthesteelindustryandtheextractivetechnologyto supplyitsneeds,Walesbecameacenterofindustrialactivity.Thisusheredinacenturyof abnormalpopulationgrowth:thepopulationtripledinWalesduringthenineteenthcentury (Lewis,1978b:268).Twofeaturesofthissurgeinpopulationhadimportantconsequencesforthe Welshlanguage.Onewasthedisparityindensityofpopulationandinlifewayswhichemerged betweendistrictsthathadnosignificantcoalorirondeposits,remainingruralandpastoralin character,anddistrictsthatdid.Thosewithsuchresourcesinevitablyurbanizedandequally inevitablybecamelessWelshincharacter.Thesecondimportantfeaturewasacontributing factortothisverydisparity:aconsiderablepartofthepopulationbulgewastheresultofthein migrationofEnglishlabor.Denbighshire,andespeciallyFlintshireinthenortheast,were affected,butGlamorganandMonmouthshireinthesoutheastmuchmoreso,sincetheSouth Walescoalfieldwasthepreeminentproducer. Summary NotwooftheCelticspeakingareasoftheBritishIslesshowthesamepatternofretreatunder pressurefromEnglishpoliticalandculturalexpansion.AoncewhollyCelticorcelticizedIreland retainedapeasantrydeeplyconsciousofitsCelticandCatholicidentity,butlargelythrough militarydefeatsyieldeditslandownershipanditsprosperitytoanonCelticgentryand aristocracy.Scotland,withasmallbutveryearlyAnglianpopulationinthemostfertiledistricts, experiencedgrowthoftheterritorialandculturalstrengthofthatGermanic 115

elementinitsmidstandretreatoftheCelticelementtoinaccessibleandrelativelyinfertile fastnesses.Wales,withageneralpopulationasuniversallyCelticorcelticizedasthatofearly Ireland,sufferedneitherthekindofcrushingdefeatthatmighthaveeliminatednativeculture altogethernortheoverlysuccessfulrivalryofalocalnonCelticelementthatmighthavesentthe nativeWelshintothemountainstostay.Rather,Walesbecametheindustrialhandmaidenofits alltoocloseneighbor,anditsCeltslefttheirmountainsandremotevalleysvoluntarilyforthe economicopportunityofthecoalfields.Theretheymingledwith,andweresometimes submergedby,largenumbersofimmigrantEnglishmenattractedtothesameopportunity. Cornwall,itmightbenoted,combinedtheIrishresistancetotheReformationwiththeWelsh proximitytoEngland.Thoughremotebyreasonofitspeninsularconfigurationanditslocationat thesouthwesternextremeoftheBritishlandmass,itlackedthemountainousimpregnabilityof manypartsofScotlandandWalesandlaymoreopentoEnglisharmiesmovingtoquellrisings inthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies.Itisnotamatterofchance,then,thatCornishwasthe firstoftheCelticlanguageswithalargenativespeakerpopulationstillinevidenceaslateasthe sixteenthcenturytodisappearcompletelybeforetheadvanceofEnglish. THEPRESENTSITUATION AlthoughthehistoricalsituationsthataffectedtheCelticlanguagesoftheBritishIslesadversely weredifferentineachregion,theoutcomeforthevariouslanguageswasstrikinglysimilar regardlessofregion.TheEnglishconfrontedtheCeltsasenemiesalmostfromthefirst. OriginallyinvitedasalliesofthesouthernBritishtribesagainstthePictsafterRoman withdrawalinthefifthcentury,theAngloSaxonssoonbecameconquerorsratherthanallies. Throughoutthesubsequentcenturies,despitemanytemporarymilitaryalliancesofconvenience andnolackofstrategicintermarriagesamongtheleadingfamiliesofbothpopulations,the culturaltraditionsneverfullymerged.Rather,theCelticpopulationsretreatedintodistricts remoteenoughorundesirableenoughforthemtohold.Wheretheywereabletofindsuch strongholdstheypreservedtheirowntraditionsandlanguagesagainsteverincreasingpressure fromtheAngloSaxons.Wheretheywerenotabletoretreat,asinCornwall,assimilationto Englishcustoms,laws,andlanguagewasinevitable,althoughaspectsoffolkliferemainCeltic nonetheless. AngloSaxonattitudestowardtheCeltsandtheirlanguagesweremuchasonewouldexpectfrom adominantgroupconstantlyconfrontedwiththeneedtoquellyetanotherrestiveandrebellious Celticpopulationwithintheirrealm.Thesubordinategroupinthiscasewasnotonlymarkedly differentinlanguage,law,literarytradition,andrulesofsuccessiontothekingship(seeDillon andChadwick,1967,chapters5,7and9,forexample),butitcultivatedawarriorethos. 116

Thus,theCelticpeoplesofBritainrelishedwarfare,andtheirpacificationdidnotcomeeasily fromanAngloSaxonpointofview. Itdidcomenaturally,ontheotherhand,fortheAngloSaxonstoregardthesewarlikeCelts,with theirexoticlifewaysandtheirunintelligiblelanguages,assavages,barbarians,andlesserbeings. ScathingAngloSaxonopinion(includingLowlandScottishopinionoftheHighlanders)has comedowntousinalltoogenerousmeasure. Twomajorworks,M.HechterInternalColonialism:TheCelticFringeinBritishNational Development,15361966(1975),andR.N.LebowWhiteBritainandBlackIreland:The InfluenceofStereotypesonColonialPolicy(1976),arguepersuasivelythatsuchattitudesas thesewerecriticaltotheestablishmentandmaintenanceofathoroughlycolonialBritishrule overtheCelticpartsoftheBritishIsles. IntheIrishcase,wehaveseenthatthelongtermeffectofculturalhostilityandpolitical subjugationwasasuccessfulindependencemovement.InthecaseofScotlandandWales,the 1960swereawatershed,withNationalistcandidateswinningparliamentaryseatsforthefirst timeinbothcountries(Cunliffe,1979:211;Brand,1978:262).Aproposalfor"devolution"(a policythatwouldgrantScotlandandWalessomewhatmorecontrolovertheirowninternal affairs)wasputtothevoteinthosecountriesin1979.Itfailed,andironicallysomeofthe strongestoppositioncamefromsegmentsoftherespectiveNationalistparties.Thosesegments feltthattheproposallackedsufficientprovisionforpoliticalandculturalautonomytowarrant support. ThepublicityattendingfirsttheelectionofWelshandScottishNationalistmembersof Parliamentandsubsequentlythedebateoverdevolutionhascreatedaclimateinwhichdemands forconcessioninbothsymbolicandsubstantivemattersofsupportforethnicidentityare somewhatmorelikelytobringresults. OneenduringifunlikelyseemingfocusofculturaltensionandNationalistdemandshasbeen roadsigns.InbothWalesandScotland,regardlessoftheproportionofCelticmothertongue speakerstoEnglishmothertonguespeakersinanygivendistrict,roadsignshavetraditionally beenpostedinEnglishonly.Inprotestofthispolicy,vandalismtoroadsignshasgradually becomeaseriousproblemoverthepastseveraldecades,assignshavebeenremoved,painted over,oradornedwithNationalistslogans.Butwhenauthoritiesfinallyyieldedtothepressures bypostinganumberofbilingualroadsigns,criticswerequicktopointoutthatEnglishalways appearedfirst,withtheCelticlanguagebeneath.Vandalismhasresumed,thoughatalowerlevel, andlocalnewspapersinWalesandHighlandScotlandremainfullofarticlesandletterstothe editorarguingtheroadsignissue. Inamorecriticalmatter,theamountofradioandtelevisionprogrammingprovidedinCeltic languages,thedebatehasbeenhotterandhasincludedtheRepublicofIreland,despiteostensible governmentsupportforIrishlanguageprogrammingthere.InScotlandtheissueshavebeen amountofairtime,withGaelicspeakerscomparingthehoursofprogrammingprovided immigrantlan 117

guageslikePunjabiandUrduwiththehoursprovidedtheirownlanguage;andthelackofafull timeGaelicradiostationbasedintheOuterHebrides,theheartlandofGaelictoday.InWales, wherealargerproportionofthepopulationspeaksWelsheithernativelyorasasecondlanguage, thepressurehasbeenforanallWelshtelevisionchannelaswellasforincreasedprogrammingofall types.IntheRepublicofIrelandtherehavebeenchargesoftokenismandinsufficientvarietyin programming,withIrishsupporterspointingtothegreatdisparitybetweennumberofhoursof broadcastinginIrishandnumberofhoursofbroadcastinginEnglish.Sometimestheyalsoclaim thatseriouscoverageofmajornationalandinternationalnewsstoriesisstilltoolikelytobein EnglishandnotinIrish. GovernmentalresponsetopressuresformorefavorabletreatmentoftheCelticlanguageshas differedconsiderablybyregion.Clearly,theRepublicofIrelandrepresentsthemostfavorablecase. TheIrishConstitutionof1937declares:"TheIrishlanguageasthenationallanguageisthefirst officiallanguage.TheEnglishlanguageisrecognizedas...[a]secondofficiallanguage" (Macnamara,1971:76).NamingIrishthe"firstofficiallanguage"didnotleadautomaticallytoits generaladoption,however,evenbythegovernmentitself.Irishhasbeenpromotedvigorously, especiallyatasymboliclevel.UptothepresentitremainstruethatcoinagebearsnoEnglish,only Irish,andbanknotesandpostagebearaminimumofEnglish;letterheadsarebilingual,buttheIrish isusuallyinlargertypeandstandsfirstineachline,withthesmallerEnglishversionprinted interlinearly.SeamusOCiosain,whonotesthesefactsinarecentpaper,reportsalsooftheDail,or Parliament:"InParliament,formalprayersandmotionsareusuallyinIrishwhilestatutesare publishedincompletelybilingualversionsanddebatesarealmostentirelyinEnglish"(1983:13). TheCommissionontheRestorationoftheIrishLanguagewassetupbythegovernmentto investigateprogress;itmadeanextensivereportin1964.AgovernmentWhitePaperpublisheda yearlaterinresponsetotheCommission'sFinalReportrepeatsattheoutsettherelativepositionof thetwolanguagesasestablishedbytheConstitution,butfollowsthisimmediatelywithaparagraph headed"TheNationalAim."Inthisnextparagraph,arelativelymodestgoalissetforth,namely,"to restoretheIrishlanguageasageneralmediumofcommunication"(TheRestorationoftheIrish Language,1965:4).Thus,Irishmaybeaccordedfavoredstatus,butinpracticaltermsthatdoesnot necessarilymeanoustingEnglishfromdominanceorevencreatingabilingualnationinwhichall citizensarefullyathomeinbothlanguages.Ofthecontentandeffectofthe1965WhitePaper, Macnamarawrites: Thewhitepaperfurthergoesontorecognizeperhapsforthefirsttimeinsucha documentthatthecountryisdependentandwillcontinuetobedependentona knowledgeofEnglish.AlthoughthetermsofboththeConstitutionandthewhitepaper areso 118

vaguethattheyruleoutafirmconclusionthattheofficialpolicyhadchanged,manypeoplefeltthat asignificantchangehadbeensignalled(1971:83). Allsuchmattersarerelative,ofcourse.IfthegovernmentoftheUnitedKingdomweretomake statementsofsupportforWelshorGaelicechoingthoseoftheIrishgovernment,supportersof thoselanguageswouldfeelthatamajorvictoryhadbeenwon.ThedisappointmentsoftheIrish attemptatlanguagerevivalhavebeengreatinproportiontotherhetoricofgovernmentalsupport andtothegrandiosevisionsoftheIrishnationalistsatthetimeofthefoundingoftheFreeStateand inthedecadesleadinguptothatevent. TheIrishgovernmenthasexpendedenormousenergyandlargesumsofmoneyinthepromotionof Irish,whichagainmakesthelimitedresultsofthoseexpendituresparticularlydisappointing.The thrustofgovernmentalsupportofIrishhasbeentwofold:topreservethesmallresidualpopulation ofnativeIrishspeakerswhichstillremains,andtomaketherestofthecountryasfullyconversant aspossiblewithitsIrishheritage,linguisticandcultural.Ithasseemedcrucialtothesurvivalof Irishthatatruenativespeakerpopulationsurviveasavalidatingentity,asignaltotherestofthe countrythatIrishcanserveasagenuinelanguageofdailylife.Aseriousobstacleinthebattleto maintainthenativespeakerpopulationhasbeenthefragmenteddistributionoftheGaeltacht,the residualIrishspeakingarea.Small,discontinuousdistrictsontheseaboardsofthewesterncounties ofDonegal,Mayo,Galway,andKerrycontainthebulkoftheIrishspeakingpopulation.Theyare cutofffromeachotherbyinterveningareasinwhichEnglishistheonlynativelanguage.The districtstobeofficiallyrecognizedaspartoftheGaeltachtweredefinedbytheGaeltachtAreas Orderof1956.WithintheGaeltachtmanyspecialbenefitsareprovidedbythegovernmentasan inducementtotheIrishspeakingpopulationtostayandtoremainIrishinspeech.Sincethereis relativelylittlearablelandinpreciselythesedistricts,andtherewashistoricallyanotablelackof commercialdevelopmentofanykind,agooddealofgovernmentinterventionwasrequiredif devastatingoutmigrationwastobeavoided.Interventionhastakenanumberofforms:anoutright grant(originally2pounds,later10pounds)totheparentsinaGaeltachtfamilyforeverychild certifiedasIrishspeakingbytheschoolinspectors,andspecialhousebuildinggrants,alongwith officialstatusasasuitablehostfamilyforsummerlanguagestudents,forsuchfamilies;special grantsforagriculturalimprovement;grantsfortheconstructionofvillagehallsforcommunity gatheringsandentertainments;andintroductionofgovernmentsponsoredmanufacturessuchas tweed,toys,andknitwear(Fennell,1981:33;TheRestorationoftheIrishLanguage,1965:5456). Aparticularlysevereandwellinformedcriticofthefailureofpoliciesaimedatpreservinga genuineGaeltachtwouldseemtobeDesmondFennell,whomadeasurveyoftheGaeltachtin1975 and1976.HenotesthattheofficiallydesignatedGaeltachtareasof1956wereknownevenatthe timetoincludeconsiderableterritorythatwasEnglishspeaking(Fennell,1981:35).The1971 119

censusgaveaGaeltachtpopulationofseventyonethousand,butFennell'sownsurveyafewyears laterturneduponlytwentyninethousandpeoplewholivedindistricts,orin"pockets,"whereIrish wasthe"normallanguageofdailyintercourse."HisfindingsonthetransmissionofIrishwere decidedlydismal: [I]nthecourseofthe1970's,intheprincipalIrishspeakingterritories,themajorityof parentshavebeguntoreartheirchildreninEnglish.AfamilyrearingitschildreninIrish isnow,inmostplaces,amatterforcomment.Sincethiskindofsituationhasbeenthe usualpreambletothedisappearanceofanIrishspeakingdistrict,itisfairtosaythatthe finaldissolutionoftheGaeltachtisnowinsight(1981:36). IfwelookcloselyatIrishgovernmentpolicyintheGaeltachttowardoneofthetensiongenerating issuesdiscussedaboveinrelationtoWalesandScotland,namely,roadsigns,someofthe ambivalencethatvitiatesofficialeffortstopromoteIrishbecomesevident.TheWhitePaperof 1965,whichformedthegovernment'sresponsetotheFinalReportoftheCommissiononthe RestorationoftheIrishLanguagein1964,takesuptheissueofroadsigns.TheCommissionhad recommendedfortheGaeltachtthatplacenamesforwhichtheIrishandtheEnglishwerevery nearlythesameberenderedonlyinIrish,andwhentheIrishandtheEnglishwerequitedifferent thatbothbegivenwiththeIrishversioninlargerletteringthantheEnglish(printedas Recommendation61inTheRestorationoftheIrishLanguage,1965:4244).TheWhitePaper responsetothisRecommendationinthesamepublicationreads: 78.Asthemainpurposeofroadsignsistofacilitatetraffic,clarityanduniformityareof paramountimportance.Thesignsmustbedesignedsoastobeeasilyunderstood withoutconfusionorhesitationbydriversofmechanicallypropelledvehicles;theyare notprimarilyintendedforresidentsoftheimmediatelocality.Untilthemajorityof driverscaneasilyreadandunderstandIrish,signsinallareasmustgiveprominenceto theEnglishversionofplacenameswheretheEnglishversionsarecommonlyused. Where,however,theEnglishversionisadirectoralmostdirectrenderingoftheIrish, theIrishversiononlywillinfuturebeshownonadditionalorreplacementsigns(The RestorationoftheIrishLanguage,1965:44). Thisresponse,closelyconsidered,amountstoabluntstatementthatEnglishistheworking languageofIrelandandthattherightofGaeltachtresidentstoprotectionoftheirnativelanguage maybeworth10poundsperyearforeachIrishspeakingschoolchildbutitisnotworth inconveniencetononlocaldrivers.Onemightalmostaswellsuggestthatsincethebulkofpeople enteringHoekvanHollandaretakingtheferrytoHarwichandarenotDutch,andsincetheDutch residentsalreadyknowtheirwayaround,roadsignsinthatpartoftheNetherlandsshouldbein English,French,andGerman,butnotinDutch.InanynormalsovereignstateinEurope,roadsigns areprintedinthelocallanguage(veryoccasionallywithaforeignlanguageglossadded),androad mapsaremadeavailablewithlocallanguageplacenamesrenderedintowhateverotherlanguage 120

mightbeuseful:GermanfortheGermans,FrenchfortheFrench,andsoforth.ItisnotIreland generallywhichisatissuehereexclusivelyIrishroadsignsinDublinmightwellbeofdubious value.Rather,itistheGaeltacht,anareaofficiallydesignatedasIrishspeakingbythe governmentitself.ThereseemstobeamessageconveyedtoGaeltachtresidentsbytheroadsign policytotheeffectthattheyshouldbeIrishspeakingwhenitsuitsgovernmentconveniencefor example,whenthegovernmentwishestosendcivilservantsonsummercoursestoimprovetheir IrishbylivingtemporarilyintheGaeltachtbutnotwhenitmightbeaninconveniencetothe restofthepopulationortotourists.Thus,theroadsignissue,whichseemstrivialatfirstblush,is perhapsnotaninappropriatefocusfortheattentionoflinguisticminoritiesafterall,atleast withintheirownheartlands. WhereeffortstopromoteaknowledgeofIrishoutsidetheGaeltachtareconcerned,therehave beenindividualsuccessesofnoteintheformofpeoplewhohaveachievednativelikecontrolof IrishwithoutbenefitofanIrishspeakinghome.Themostseriousproblemsidentifiedinthe overallachievementare:(1)thefactthatthesuccessfullearnersofIrishhavebeenmiddleclass, withtheworkingclasspopulationrelativelyuntouchedbygovernmenteffortsonbehalfofIrish, bothoftheseresultsconnectedwiththecrucialroleofagoodsecondaryeducationinacquired fluency;and(2)thefactthatthesuccessfullearnersofIrisharenotgeographicallyclusteredin neighborhoodsordistrictsbutscatteredthroughoutthepopulation,sothatthelikelihoodof successfulhometransmissiontothenextgenerationisgreatlyreducedbytheisolationofthe familyunitsinwhichtransmissioneffortsarebeingmade(Greene,1981:6).Inasurveythat tackledthequestionofconversationalabilityinIrishoutsidetheGaeltacht,apartfrom1.9 percentwhowereactualnativespeakers,thereappearedamongtherespondents7.4percentwho hadacquiredafairdegreeoffluency(CommitteeonIrishLanguageAttitudesResearch, 1975:129).Extrapolatingfromthissampletothepopulationasawhole,D.Greeneestimatesthat theremightthenbe220,000peopleintheRepublicofIrelandwhohavelearnedIrishtothepoint ofreasonablefluency(Greene,1981:6).Hecallsthisa"reasonablyrespectablelinguisticgroup," capable,forexample,ofsupportingacertainnumberofwritersandjournalistswhochosetouse Irish(p.6).Butgiventheobstaclestotransmissionofsuchacquiredfluency,thisisnotsomuch groundthatiswonasgroundthathasbeentakenforthemomentandwillneedtobeperpetually retakenbysucceedinggenerationsthroughtheirownefforts. Intheearly1970s,apairofwritersproducedabookdevotedtothesuccessfulrevivalof threatenedfolklanguagesexplicitlytoremindtheCelticpeoplesthattheirplightwasnotunique andthatthegoaloflanguagerevivalwasobtainable.ComparingIrishwithFaroese,theystated: TodayinmodernliteraturethenamesandworksofRichardB.Thomsen,William HeinesenandJorgenFrantzJacobsenareworldfamous.Yetthelanguagetheywrite in,Faroese,wasdeadasawrittenlanguagebythe15thcenturyand...[its] restorationonly 121

startedaboutthetimeofthefoundationoftheGaelicLeagueinthe19thcentury (Ellisandmaca'Ghobhainn,1971:7). If"worldfamous"isabitstrongfortheauthorsnamed,thegeneralpointiswelltaken(cf. Greene,1981,andPoulsen,1981).Thereisbite,therefore,inthesameauthors'commentthat onlytheRepublicofIreland,amongcountrieswithaCelticspeakingpopulation,hasbeenina positiontomakelanguagerestorationanofficialpolicy,andthatamongcountriesattempting languagerevival,Irelandhasbeen"theonlycountrytoundertakesuchapolicyandfail"(Ellis andmaca'Ghobhainn,1971:8).Thereasonsforthefailurearecomplex,ofcourse,andsincethey areboundupinmanyrespectswithIreland'sbilingualeducationpolicies,discussionwillbe postponeduntilthenextsection. NeitherWalesnorHighlandScotlandhasenjoyedthepoliticalindependencethatwouldafford themtheluxuryofestablishingtheirownpoliciesonlanguageuseandlanguagepromotion. InWales,thegreatadvanceofrecentyearswastheWelshLanguageActof1967,whichgave Welsh"equalvalidity"withEnglish(Khleif,1980:84).Remarkableastheexistenceofsuchan actisforaCelticcountrythathassufferedtheusualsuppressionordiscouragementofits originallanguageunderEnglishrule,thepracticalconsequencesoftheActarelimited.Provision wasmadefortheuseofWelshincourtbyanypartytothecourtcase,butsubsequent clarificationsofthatprovisionhavesharplylimiteditsapplication.Thus,whileaccusedpersons havetherighttotranslationofallevidenceintoWelshfortheirbenefit,laylitigantsdonot. ControlovertheuseofWelshinagivencaseresideswiththecourtinwhichthatcaseisbeing heardandthuswiththeofficialspresidingineachcase;nocourtsweredesignatedforregularuse ofWelshsothatlaypersonscouldbesureoftheuseofWelshbytakingtheircasetosuchcourts. Ashortageofinterpreterscompetenttohandlelegalterminologyandthesortofabstractissues likelytoariseinacourtcasefurtherreducestheusefulnessoftheprovision(Khleif,1980:84 90). Governmentdepartments,technicallyalsocoveredbytheWelshLanguageAct,respondedin equallylimitedfashion,makingsomeofficialformsavailableinWelshbutnotothers,orlaying outonlyEnglishversionsreadytohand,thusreducingthenumberofpeoplewhowouldaskfor Welshformsandusethem(Khleif,1980:9091). The"equalvalidity"provisionoftheWelshLanguageActhasperhapsbecomemoreusefulasa potentialwedgebywhichfutureconcessionscanbedemandedandbyreferencetowhichactual inequitiescanbehighlightedthanitwasasagenuinesourceofimmediateimprovementinthe positionofWelshinWalesatthetimeofitspromulgation. Inmatterslesstechnicallylegal,theWelshhavehadsomemarkedsuccess,especiallyby comparisonwiththeHighlandScots.Onanexperimentalbasisatleast,theyhavegainedtheall Welshtelevisionchannelwhichtheylobbiedfor.Attheuniversitylevel,theWelshhavebeen moresuccessfulthaneitherthe 122

IrishortheGaelsinpressingtheirnationaluniversitysystemtoaccommodatetheirspecialneeds andinterests: [T]heinfluenceofthenativespeakersofWelshamongtheuniversitypopulationisfar greaterthantheirnumericalstatuswouldallowustoexpect.Someofthecollegeshave residentialhostelswhicharereservedforWelshspeakingundergraduates.Some departmentsoftheUniversity...teachsomeofthecourseinWelshandtheyhave appointedmembersoftherespectivefacultieswiththispurposeinmind(Lewis, 1978a:271). InScotland,therearenocountrywideprovisionsforGaelic,symbolicorotherwise.Scotland's internaldivisionbetweentheLowlands,whereeitherScotsoritsrelativeEnglishhasdominatedfor centuries,andtheHighlands,traditionallyCelticbutincreasinglyEnglishinpopularspeech,creates anunfavorableenvironment.TheinherentdifferencebetweenScotlandontheonehandandWales andIrelandontheotherisapparentfromtheobvioussymbolicrolewhichtheCelticlanguagehas inanindependentIrelandandwouldwithoutdoubthaveinanindependentWales,andthe uncertaintyastowhatroleGaelicwouldplayinanindependentScotland.Englishspeakerswere originallyanunwelcomeintrusioninconqueredIrelandandtheproductofanindustriallymotivated migrationintoWales,althoughinbothcountries,ofcourse,manynativesevenamajorityadopted thelanguageoftheintruders.InScotland,speakersofEnglishhaveaverylongindigenoushistory, andalthoughGaelicwasprobablythelanguageofthegreaterpartofthecountryintheearlytwelfth century,itseemsmostlikelythat"thiscoveragevariedregionallyinintensityofGaelicspeaking andthatatnoperiodwithinearlyandmedievalScotlandwasGaeliceverywhereunderstoodand usedasaspokenlanguageforallpurposesbyallpersons"(Withers,1984:18).Consequently,itis difficultforScotstorallyaroundGaelicthroughoutthecountryevenemblematically,althoughthe ScottishNationalParty(SNP)hasmadesupportforGaelicaplankofitsplatformforsomeyears.It isprobablynotaccidentalthatthemostGaelicspeakingregioninScotland,theWesternIsles,has beenrathermoreconsistentinvotingfortheSNPthanotherregions,anumberofwhichhave electedanSNPpoliticalcandidatetoParliamentatonetimeoranotherinrecentyears,butthen electedarivalpartycandidateinthesubsequentcampaigns. In1981,theSNPMemberofParliamentfortheWesternIslesintroducedabillthatwouldhave givenGaeliclegalstatus,butitwas"talkedout"(preventedfromcomingtoavote)intheHouseof Commons.WithinScotlanditselfafewconcessionshavebeengained:severalverydecorative bilingualairletterformshavebeenproducedbythepostalserviceinScotland,andtheGaelic BooksCouncil,withgrantsauthorizedbytheSecretaryoftheStateforScotlandbeginningin1968, hasbeenenabledtosupportthepublicationofnewwritinginGaelic,toreissueGaelicclassicsthat havegoneoutofprint,andtotranslateintoGaelicsomeworksoriginallypublishedinother languages(TheObanTimes,December15,1977).ThepublicationofGaelicmaterialshas importantimpli 123

cationsnotonlyfortheabilityofanumberofoutstandingmodernGaelicpoetstoseetheirworks intoprint,butalsoforthesurvivalofGaelicdramagroups(alwaysinneedoffreshmaterial)and especiallyforbilingualeducation,aswillbecomeclearinthenextsection. BILINGUALEDUCATIONANDTHEFUTURE AsaprefacetodiscussionofbilingualeducationeffortsinthethreeCelticareas,thesituationwith regardtodialectdiversityandthestandardizationproblemscanbequicklydealtwith.Thescattered distributionofthesurvivingGaeltachtareasinIrelandhasatleasttheoneadvantageofallowingfor therecognitionofthreebasicdialectclusters:Donegal(Ulster)dialectsinthenorthwest,Connacht dialectsinthecentralpartofthewesternseaboard,andMunsterdialectsinthesouthwest.There wasagreatneedforstandardizationofthewrittenforms,ifIrishwastobepromotedofficially,and formodernizationandsimplificationofspellingandscript.Bothtaskswereundertakenbythe translationofficeoftheIrishParliament.Areformedspellingwasachievedin1945andadoptedfor governmentuseinthesameyear;theoldorthographywasanachronisticanddifficultformodern speakerstomaster,sothatthereformsespeciallywithofficialsupportmetwithwideacceptance. Standardizationofthegrammarwassomewhatmoreproblematic,sinceitwashardtoaccommodate thevarietyfoundamonglivingdialectsandtomodifymodernIrishwithoutdivorcingthecurrent languagefromitshistoryanditsliterarytradition.In1953,thetranslationofficeproduceda simplifiedandstandardizedgrammar,specifyingfourprinciplesthatguidedtheeffort;thesewere authenticity(intermsofsimilaritytoformsorgrammaticalrulesfoundinlivingGaeltachtdialects), widestcurrencyamonglivingdialects(wherecompetingvariantsexisted),preservationofhistorical continuity,andpreferenceforregularityandsimplicity.Theresultcoincidedwithnoactualspoken dialects,butithadmanyadvantagesandwasinanycaseintendedaboveallforwritersand publishersandforlearnerswhoneededtouseIrishincivilserviceandinceremonialduties.In general,formswereclosertoConnachtIrishthantothemorenortherlyorsoutherlydialects,and sinceConnachtwasgeographicallyintermediateandalsoclaimedthelargestnumberofnative speakers,thiswasanacceptabletilt(OCuiv,1969a:3233;Macnamara,1971:7374). InreadingIrishgovernmentpublicationsdealingwiththeactualformwhichtheIrishlanguageisto take,itbecomesclearthatatensionisinherentinthetwoquitedifferentgoalsoflanguagepolicy. Ontheonehand,writtenIrishmustberenderedasregularandlearnableaspossible,sothatthe generalpopulacewillnotseethetaskofacquiringitasimpossible;yet,ontheotherhand,theactual spokendialects,whichalonedemonstratethecolorandauthenticityofthelanguage,mustbe encouraged,sothatIrishdoesnotbecomealifelessEsperantolikeabstraction.Thus,theWhite Paperof1965speaksfirstofadaptingIrishtotheneedsofmodernlife,butthenintheverynext paragraphtakespains 124

tostate:"Thispolicyofstandardizationdoesnotofcoursedetractfromtherespectinwhichthe livingspeechoftheGaeltacht,withitslocaltonesandvariations,isrightlyheld"(The RestorationoftheIrishLanguage,1965:14).Thetensionproducedbythedualaimof governmentpolicyprobablycannotberesolved.DespitethehomagepaidtoGaeltachtdialects, speakersofthosedialectsareunlikelytofeelthattheirspeechishonoredinadeeplymeaningful oreveneconomicallyreinforcingsenseiftheceremonialIrishspokenandbroadcastonstate occasions,andeventheIrishofgovernmentformsandnotices,isnoticeablydifferentfromtheir owneverydaylanguage.However,theusebyRadionaGaeltachta(thestateoperatedallIrish radionetworkopenedin1972)ofthethreespokendialectsinequalmeasurehasgreatlyhelped listenersineachGaeltachtdistricttobecomeaccustomedtothevariationsintheotherareas. InWales,thechiefdialectdivisionisbetweenthenorthandthesouth.GwynneddandPowys,in thenorthwestandnortheast,respectively,andDyfedandGwentinthesouthwestandsoutheast, respectively,containcharacteristicdialectclusters(Lockwood,1972:6869).Althoughdialect diversityisfairlypronouncedintheregionalspokenvariantsofWelsh,asistrueintheother CelticareasoftheBritishIsles,Welshismorefortunatethantheothersinhavingawell established,widelyusedliteraryandspokenstandardformandapopulationthatisonthewhole accustomedtoitandabletomakeactiveuseofit,despitethefactthatitdoesnotcoincidewith anyactualspokendialect.Thechiefreasonforthisseemstobetheearlyandcontinuingsuccess ofthe"circulatingschools"inWales,andtheirsuccessors.Beguninthefirsthalfofthe eighteenthcentury,thecirculatingschoolsusedWelshasthelanguageofinstruction;the teachersquicklytaughtthepupils(adultsaswellaschildren)inagivenlocationtoreadWelsh andthenmovedontostarttheprocessagaininanotherdistrict(Durkacz,1983:83).Thewide andearlyuseofWelshineducationandthesuccessoftheeffortaredirectlytraceableto religiousandpoliticalconditionsinWalesascomparedtoIrelandandHighlandScotland: BecausetheIrishandGaeliclanguageswereassociatedwithCatholicreligionthe [early]protestantschoolsemphasizedEnglishintheircurriculumeventotheextent ofsacrificingmeaningfuleducationtothisend. InWalesontheotherhand,anationinwhichthejacobitetraditionwasathingof straw,themothertonguewasnottaintedwithCatholicismorrebellion.Itsuseasa vehicleofreligiousinstructionhadbeenpioneeredbytheWelshTrustinthelate17th century:Welshwasneveralienatedfromreligiouslifeandeducationaswerethe GaelicandIrishlanguages(Durkacz,1983:81). ThereissomedifferenceinthespokenvalueofwrittenvowelsineventhestandardWelsh languageasbetweennorthandsouthWales.ButthereisnodoubtthattheWelsharefarmore familiarwiththenormalizedformoftheirlanguage,andcomfortablewithit,thanistrueoftheir counterpartsintheotherCelticareas. 125

InGaelicScotland,perhapstwochiefproblemsareconnectedwiththeformofthelanguage;these problemscausespecialdifficulties.OneisthatGaelicspellinghasnotenjoyedthemodernization whichIrishhasundergone,anditisbothcumbersomeandambiguous;itposesaformidable problemforchildrenandlearnerswithoutknowledgeoflanguagehistory,aswellasforanyonewho haslearnedEnglishspellingfirst,sincemanyidenticallettercombinationshaveverydifferent soundvaluesinthetwolanguages. Thesecondproblemisthattheregionwhichbyitselfaccountsforaverylargeproportionofthe nativeGaelicspeakersalivetoday,theIsleofLewis,alsohappenstobethehomeofthedialect foundmostdifficulttounderstandbyspeakersofmostotherGaelicdialects.Bysimpleavailability, speakersofLewisGaelicoccupymanyHighlandpulpits,andtheystafforappearonarelatively largenumberofGaelicradioandTVbroadcasts.Complaintaboutthedifficultyofmakingout LewisGaeliciswidespreadinmuchoftherestofGaelicspeakingScotland.Other"aberrant" dialects,typicallylocatedontheGaelicperiphery,nowhavesofewsurvivingspeakersthatthey causenooneelseanydifficulty,althoughtheremainingspeakersinthosedistrictsmayhavespecial problemsinunderstandingtheGaelictheyhearfrombroadcastmediaorfromotherGaelswith whomtheycomeincontact. AsinIrelandandWales,theformofthelanguageofficiallydisseminatedinschools,usedinformal broadcasting,andgenerallyadoptedforpurposesofwrittencommunicationdoesnotcoincidewith anyactualspokendialect.Ordinaryspeakersseemtoidentifyverylittlewithit,andintheabsence ofstrongsupportforitonanynationalorevenregionallevel,itmayactuallybealienatingfora goodmanynativespeakers(Dorian,1978:651;1981:8789). Aswithallothermattersofpublicpolicyinvolvinglanguage,IrelandwasthefirstoftheCeltic areastoembracebilingualeducation.TheIrishFreeStatewasrequiringatleastanhouradayof instructioninorthroughIrishinallnationalschoolswithateachercompetentinIrishasearlyas 1922.In1934,teachingasfaraspossiblethroughthemediumofIrishwasmadeobligatoryforall nationalschoolteachers(Macnamara,1966:34).Althoughactualpracticehasvariedagooddeal overtheyears,basicbeliefintheimportanceofschoolinginIrishhasrepeatedlyresurfacedaspart ofthenationalideology,bothwithinofficialdomandamongthepopulace.TheWhitePaperof1966 stated: TheGovernmentadherestotheviewthatnoIrishchildcanberegardedasfully educatedifhegrowsupwithoutaknowledgeoftheIrishlanguageandthatthe educationalsystemwillbeseriouslydefectiveifitdoesnotprovidefortheteachingof Irishtoallchildren(WhitePaperontheRestorationoftheIrishLanguage,1966:36). Inthefollowingdecade,68percentofapopulationsampleof2,443personsoutsidetheGaeltacht agreedwiththestatementthat"AllchildrenshouldberequiredtolearnIrishasasubjectinschool": 93percentofa542personsample 126

withintheGaeltachtagreedwiththesamestatement(CommitteeonIrishLanguageAttitudes Research,1975:26). Giventhestrengthofgovernmentcommitmentandtheapparentsupportofthepublicnotjustfor availabilityofIrishintheschoolsbutevenforIrishinstructionasanobligatorypartofachild's education,onemightreasonablyexpectverypositiveresultstohaveemergedoverafiftytosixty yearperiod.Yet,asnotedabove,only7.4percentofthe2,443respondentsoutsidetheGaeltachtin thesurveypublishedin1975claimedtohaveachievedafairdegreeoffluencyinIrishifitwasnot alreadytheirhomelanguage.Thisdoesnotseemanimpressivereturnondecadesofinstructional effortandheavyexpenditure. Therearedoubtlessmanycontributingfactorstotherelativelylowlevelofsuccess.Somearemore obviousthanothers.AtthetimeofthefoundingoftheIrishFreeState,therewereabouttwo hundredthousandpeopleintheGaeltacht(ODanachair,1969:118).Butthesewerethepoorest, leastfertile,leastdevelopedregionsinIreland,andtherewasalonghistoryofmassiveemigration fromthesedistricts,especiallytoAmerica,sincefamilieswerelargeandlocalprospectsnil. PreciselyintheGaeltacht,Englishwashighlyvaluedbecauseitwasthelanguageimmigrantswould needtomaketheirwayintheworld.PatrickPearse,agreatIrishnationalistspokesmanoftheearly twentiethcentury,wasexhortinganaudienceinapoorGaeltachtdistricttocherishtheirnative languagewhenhewassilencedaftertenminutesbyashoutfromsomeoneintheaudiencetothe effectthattheirnativelanguagewouldnotbemuchusetothemwheretheyweregoingtohavetogo (Wall,1969:87).YetitwasthepeopleoftheGaeltachtwhowereexpected,inthegovernment's plan,tobe"thenaturalreservoirfromwhichlargenumbersoflearnerscandrawknowledgeand inspiration"(OCuiv,1969b:129).D.Fennell,inhiscritiqueofgovernmentpolicies,pointsoutthat thepeopleoftheGaeltachtwereneverfullyrecruitedintotherestorationeffortatapolicymaking ordecisionmakinglevel.Finally,attheendofthe1960sandthebeginningofthe1970s,Gaeltacht nativesdidorganizepoliticallyandaskforalocallyelectedregionalauthoritytoadministertheir ownaffairs;theyalsoaskedthatthelanguageorganizationspromotingIrishmovetheirheadquarters fromDublintotheGaeltacht,wheretheymightbecomethefocusofamorerealisticpopular movement.Neitherobjectivewasfullyobtained(althoughapartlyelectedGaeltachtauthoritywas setupin1979andsomedecentralizationtotheGaeltachtoccurred).Fennellconsidersthatfailure activelytoinvolvethepopulationmostcriticaltorevivaltohavesoundedthedeathknellofthe government'srestorationpolicies(Fennell,1981:3638).Evensuchaseeminglyworthyanduseful stepasthegovernmentsubsidizedintroductionofindustryinGaeltachtdistrictshasnotbeenan unmixedblessing.Industrializationhasrequiredtherecruitmentofacertainnumberofmonoglot Englishspeakers,andwheretheratioofEnglishspeakerstoIrishspeakersrisestoohigh,asinthe occasionalmoretechnologicallysophisticatedenterprise,thegaininemploymentisoffsetbya tendencyamongnativeIrishspeakerstoshifttoEnglish,onandultimatelyoffthejob(OCinneide etal.,1985). 127

InlegislatinginstructioninIrishfrom1922on,theIrishgovernmentalsocameupagainsta seriouslimitationimposedbythenatureoftheGaeltacht.Thesepoordistricts,thepopulationof whichwaslargelypeasant,weretheonlyareaswherethetruenativespeakersweretobefound. WhowastostafftheIrishclassesinallthenationalschools?Althoughscholarshipsfor universitytrainingwerereservedforGaeltachtyoungsters,and,ofcourse,someGaeltacht nativeshadalreadymadetheirwayintotheteachingprofessionbyreasonofexceptionalability, thesupplyoftrainednativespeakerscouldnotpossiblymeetthedemand.Thecompensatory strategyadoptedwastorequiretheteachersunderagefortyfivewhowerealreadyinthenational schoolstotakesummercourses,usuallyintheGaeltacht,toachieveenoughproficiencytoteach IrishandeventoteachothersubjectsthroughIrish.Thesummerboardingofteachersandcivil servantslearningIrishorimprovingtheirIrishbecameasortof"cottageindustry"inthe Gaeltachtandcontinuesevenatpresent.Therewasalso,itshouldbenoted,acertainnumberof teachersintheprimaryschoolsatthefoundingoftheFreeStatewho,throughnationalistzeal andprideinIrishheritage,hadalreadytakenthetroubletolearnIrishandwereimmediately availableasinstructors(Macnamara,1971:70;Fennell,1981:33). Theobviousquestionsraisedbythissituation,however,arehowproficientandcapabletheIrish learnersbecameasteachersoforthroughIrish,andwhatsortofimageoftheIrishlanguagethey projectedtotheirpupilswhenIrishwasevenforthemanacquiredlanguageturnedonatthe classroomdoorbutnotusedotherwiseintheirdailylives.Macnamara,whowasaschoolboyin themiddle1930s,statesthat"thetypicalprimaryteacherwhenIwasaboywas,naturally, middleagedandhadlearnedIrishforthemostpartinsummercourses."Macnamarasuspects thathisIrish"probablyrevealedstronginfluencefromEnglishinphonology,syntax,and vocabulary"andalsoprobablyincludedsomemixtureofdialectfeatures.Tellingly,theyoung Macnamara,rebukedbyanadultfornottalkingIrishwithhisoldersister,askedherlaterin privatewithhonestsurprise"IsIrishfortalking?"(Macnamara,1971:7273).Byanirony,this sameauthor,sokeenlyawareofthelikelyshortcomingsintheproficiencyofhisownteachers andtheartificialityoftheirpresentationofIrish,producedastudyshowingthenegativeeffects ofprimaryschoolteachingthroughIrish,inwhichstudythepupilsaremeticulouslygrouped accordingtosex,sexcompositionoftheschool,sizeandlocationoftheschool,andnumberof yearsofinstructioninIrishinthesubjectbeingassessed(arithmetic);buttheteachers' proficiencyinIrishwasnotassessedinanyway.Theattitudesofteachers,parents,andpupils towardIrishwerenotassessedeither,anomissionveryweaklydefendedbytheinvestigator (Macnamara,1966,especiallyp.74). TheweaknessesoftheIrishnationalprogramofbilingualeducationarethrownintosharprelief bycomparisonwiththedevelopmentofbilingualeducationinWales.InIreland,bilingual educationwasdecreed,andsubsequentlymeasureswerehastilyadoptedtomakecompliance possible.TherehasalwaysbeenanauraoftheobligatoryaboutIrishinstruction,andeven though68percentofthe 128

nonGaeltachtsamplesurveyedinthe1970smayhavestatedthattheyfavoredrequiringIrishasa schoolsubject,56percentofthatsamesamplerespondedtootheritemsinawaythatrevealed theirbeliefthatmostchildrenresentedhavingtolearnIrishand60percentsimilarlyrevealeda beliefthatchildrenlearningcertainsubjectsthroughthemediumofIrishdolesswellatthose subjectsthanchildrenlearningthesamesubjectsviaEnglish(CommitteeonIrishLanguage AttitudesResearch,1975:30).InstructioninandthroughIrishhasbeenimposedfromonhigh,in Ireland,andtherearevariousindicationsthatthesuccessoftheinstructionhasbeenhampered bythatfact. InWales,ontheotherhand,thefirsteffortsateducationinandthroughWelshweremade withoutofficialsanctionbyindividualswhocaredpassionatelyenoughaboutWelshtosacrifice financialrewardandgoodinstructionalfacilitiesinordertocreateWelshlanguageschools.The year1939sawthebeginningofthefirstWelshmediumprimaryschool,purelybyprivate initiative,inAberystwyth.ThoughintendedfornativeWelshspeakers,itwasalsoopenedto somechildrenlackingfluencyinWelsh,anditwasinpartthesuccessofthesechildrenin achievingbilingualproficiencythathelpedtoestablishthecredibilityoftheAberystwythschool. ThesecondWelshmediumprimaryschoolwasnotfoundeduntil1947,butafterthatthenumber ofsuchschoolsgrewrelativelyrapidly.ThefirstWelshmediumsecondaryschoolwasopenedin 1956inFlintshire,anunlikelylocationneartheeasternborderwithEngland.Thenumberof secondaryschoolsusingWelshasamediumofinstructionhasbeenslowertoincrease,but nonethelesshasshownmodestgrowthovertheinterveningyears.FacilitiesintheWelshmedium schoolshavebeennotoriouslypoor,buttheenthusiasmoftheteachershasbeenexceptionally high(Khleif,1980:11623).ApartfromtheWelshmediumschools,otherschoolsmake availablea"Welshstream"wherebysomestudentswithinthoseschoolscanelecttotakecertain subjectsinWelshwhicharealsotaughtinEnglishformonoglotpupils(Khleif,1980:124). EducationinandthroughWelsh,begunprivatelyandinvoluntaryfashionandsubsequently espousedbytheWelshEducationOfficeandallowedtoexpandmoreorlessaccordingto demand,hasnotproducedstudentswhoachieveatalowerlevelthanthosetaughtonlythrough English.Thus,inmarkedcontrasttothenegativefindingsofMacnamara's1966assessmentof theresultsofprimaryschoolingthroughIrishontheachievementofthepupils,theWelshOffice wasabletostatein1977: Thelearningofthetwolanguagescanenrichthetotaleducationalexperienceofthe child.Theevidencesuggeststhatthiscanbedonewithoutadverseeffectsongeneral educationalprogress.Theresultsachievedinpublicexaminationsbypupilsfrom moreWelshareasdonotcompareunfavorablywiththosefromotherareasofWales. ThenationalsurveyofreadingstandardsconductedbytheNationalFoundationfor EducationalResearchin1970/1showednosignificantdifferencesinstandardsinthe readingofEnglishbetweenthechildrenofEnglandandthechildrenofWales.Tests ofattainmentinEnglishlanguageandmathematicsandnonverbalreasoninghave beenadministeredinthecourseofseveralrecentSchoolsCouncilprojectsto examinetheconsequencesoftheuseofWelshasa 129

mediumoflearningexperiencesforchildrenfrombothWelshspeakingand Englishspeakinghomes;hereagainnoadverseeffectsongeneralattainmentlevels haveappeared.(WelshOffice,1977:16). Accordingtostatisticsfortheschoolyear1982/83,18.8percentofallWelshprimaryschools, cateringtopupilsfrombothbilingualormonolingualhomes,wereusingWelshaseitherthesole orthemainmediumofinstruction.Anadditional14.2percentofWelshprimaryschoolsused Welshasthemediumforsomeoftheteaching.Atthattimesixtythreeprimaryschoolsand thirteensecondaryschoolswereofficiallydesignatedasbilingualschoolsoutsidethemainly WelshspeakingareasofruralnorthWales.These"designatedbilingualschools"hadapupil populationof19,345(WelshOffice,1983:4344).Thesuccessofgraduatesfromtheschoolsof thiscategoryinnationalexamshasbeenhigh,sothattheyhaveareputationforacademicquality andattractpupilsfromhomeswheretheparentsaremonolingualbuthavehighaspirationsfor theirchildren(Khleif,1980:195). ThepercentageoftheWelshpopulationwhichspeaksWelshhasshownasteadydeclineforat leastninetyyears,andthisgeneraltrendcontinuedinthelatestcensusfigures(1981).Butwhile thepercentagediddropoverall,thedeclinebetween1971and1981wasonly1.9percent,whereas between1961and1971itwas5.2percent,andintheprecedingdecadeitwas2.9percent.The rateofdeclinehasslowedsomewhat,andtwootherfactsthatappearinthe1981censusreport pointtotheinfluenceofWelshmediumschoolsinproducingthatresult.Mostsuggestiveisthe markeddifferenceamongagegroups.Speakersoverfifteenyearsofagedeclinedinnumber,but thenumberofspeakersbetweenthreeandfifteenrose.Fortheagegroupsthreetofourandfive tonine,therisebetweentheyears1971and1981weregreatenoughtomakethe1981figure higherthanthefigurefor1961,twodecadesearlier.Furthermore,thedropoffinWelshspeaking betweenthetwomostrecentcensuseswasroughly3to4percentinagegroupsovertwentyfive, butonly1percentinagegroupfifteentotwentyfour.Thus,slowingorreversalofthedeclinein Welshspeakingischaracteristicofpeopleundertwentyfive,whiledeclinecontinuesatafairly stiffrateamongolderpeople.Similarly,declinecontinuesinthemoreruralpartsofWalesina wayreminiscentoftheGaeltachtinIreland.HereWelshisthenormallanguageofdailylifefora significantpartofthepopulation,butthelivingispoorandoutmigrationisalongestablished pattern.InGwentandSouthGlamorgan,howeverGwentborderingonEnglandandSouth GlamorganahighlyindustrializedareathatincludesCardiff,thecapitaltherewasaslightrise inthenumberofWelshspeakers.InSouthGlamorgan,thoughnotinGwent,theriseagain makesthepercentageofWelshspeakershigherin1981thanitwastwodecadesearlier,inthe 1961census(Census1981:50).SouthGlamorganintheschoolyear1982/83hadfortyeight primaryschoolsinwhichWelshwasthesoleormainmediumofinstruction;Gwentinthesame yearhadfifteen(WelshOffice,1983:44).Othercountieshadstillmoresuchschoolsbutmay 130

havehadmorepupilswhoalreadyknewWelshenteringthem,sothatattendanceatthemmadeless longtermdifferencetothepercentageofspeakersinthecounty. ThedifferenceintheoutcomeofbilingualeducationpoliciesinIrelandandinWalesisinstructive. InIreland,theimpetuscamefromthegovernmentandwasmadeofficialanduniversalpolicy beforethewherewithaltoimplementthepolicyrealisticallyexisted.InWales,theimpetuscame fromzealousindividuals,andthegovernmentsoonembracedwhatwasprovingtobeasuccessful enterprise.PolicyhasneverbeenuniformthroughoutWales,andavarietyofoptionsremain available. IrelandhasconcentrateditscompletelyIrishmediumprimaryschoolswithinthetraditional Gaeltachtarea;therewere157suchschools,or85percentofallsuchschools,intheGaeltachtin 197374,butonlytwentyeight,or15percent,outside(ODomhnallain,1977:89).Incontrast,Wales hasproducedaslightlybroaderdistributionofitsWelshspeakingprimaryschools,with18percent outsideoftraditionallyWelshspeakingareasin1982/83(WelshOffice,1983:4344).Sincethe "Welshspeakingareas"areoffargreaterextentthanthetinyGaeltachtdistrictsofIreland,ithas beengenerallytruethatWelshmediumschoolsarefairlywidelyscatteredthroughoutWalesand thatrelativelyurbanizedpopulationshavehadaccesstothem.TransportationtoWelshmedium schoolsasmuchastenorfifteenmilesawayhasbeenmadeavailabletopupilsinlinguistically mixeddistricts,forexample,iftheyespeciallywishedtoattendsuchaschool(Lewis,1978b:270). AscomparedwithIreland(andalsowithHighlandScotland),Waleshasamajorassetinthe existenceofarelativelylargemiddleclass.Theveryindustrializationthatthreatenedtoswamp WelshhasintheendmadeitpossiblefortheupwardlymobileWelshspeakingsonsanddaughters ofruralworkersandofcoalminerstofindappropriatejobswithinWalesandtoformasubstantial pressuregroupforWelshandforbilingualeducation(Khleif,1980:7778).Asearlyas1967,it seemedtobethecasethatprofessionalandmiddleclassparentswerethestrongestsupportersofthe Welshmediumschools(Lewis,1978a:269).Thus,Lewiscanclaimwithjustificationthat ThesystemofbilingualeducationismoreadvancedinWalesthaninIrelandorin Scotlandifweregardgeneralacceptabilitybythetotalpopulationasonecriterion.... Sofarassurvivinginamodernizedworldgoes,Welshisfarstrongerintheurbanareas, anditisintheseurbanareasthatthefateoftheCelticlanguageswillbedecided (Lewis,1980:86). IndepthbilingualeducationisafarmorerecentphenomenoninScotlandthaninIrelandorWales. Theundertakingwasmadefeasibleonlywiththereorganizationofregionalpoliticalunitsin1975, whentheWesternIslesRegioncameintobeing.ThisOuterHebrideanregioncontainsthegreat majorityofthecountry'sGaelicspeakers(andanevengreaterpredominanceoftheyoungGaelic 131

speakers).Beforethisconsolidation,variousoftheOuterHebrideanIslandswerethe westernmostdistrictsoftwolarge,chieflymainlandshires(Inverness,andRossandCromarty), thebulkofwhosepopulationwassolelyEnglishspeaking.Underpreviouslyexisting circumstances,ithadprovenpossibletointroduceGaelicasaschoolsubject,butnotmuchmore thanthat.Itwastypicallypoorlytaught,byteacherswhothemselvesmightbefluentinGaelic butlackeddecenttexts,audiovisualaids,interestingreadingmatterfortheirpupils,andtraining inmethodsofbilingualeducation.ManyGaelicspeakingteachershiredtoofferGaelicwere confrontedbymixedclassesoflearnersandnativespeakers,especiallyoutsidetheOuter Hebrides.Oneteacherhandledtheproblembysimplyrefusingtoacceptanypupilswhowerenot alreadyfluentfromhome,andanotherbyusingessentiallyrotemethodsforpupilsofall backgrounds.Inthefirstcase,parentswereindignantbutpowerless,andinthesecond,thepupils wereboredorconfused,dependingonhowmuchknowledgeofGaelictheyhadinadvance. EvenonanOuterHebrideanisland,intheperiodjustbeforethestartofthemajorbilingual educationprojectintheIslands,aresearcherwholookedcloselyateducationalmethodsandthe resultsfoundlittleofapositivenature.TheprimaryschoolpopulationofHarrisinthefirstyear ofKennethMacKinnon'sstudyhad66.7percentwhosefirstlanguagewasGaelic,although81 percentofthepupilswhosefirstlanguagewasEnglishalsohadsomeabilityinGaelic (MacKinnon,1977:77and87).Therewereseriousproblemsfortheteachersbecauseoflimited instructionalmaterials,butsomeoftheotherhandicapswereprobablymoredamagingtothe prestigeandstandingofGaelicamongtheyoungsters,regardlessoftheindividualteacher's energyorenthusiasm.Inthefirsttwoprimarygrades,evenGaelicspeakingteachersusedmostly English,althoughsomeGaelicmightbeincluded.Lateroninthesecondaryschoolyears,Gaelic wasrelegatedtotheteachingofless"important"subjects.Gaelicitself,religioushistory,and localstudieswithintheGaelicclassweretaughtinGaelic,but"serious"subjectssuchasscience, history,math,andnaturalhistoryweretaughtinEnglish.Posteddisplays,insofarastheywerein Gaelicatall,werelikelytoappearonlyintheGaelicclassroomitself.Moreover,whileposted materials,notices,andillustrationsinEnglishwereobtainedfromoutsideandwereof professionalquality,nearlyallpostedmaterialinGaelicwashomemadelocallybypupilsor teachersandlookeditbycomparisonwiththeEnglishmaterials(MacKinnon,1977:86,100, 102103).Comparingtheresultsofhissurveyspecificallyofprimaryschoolchildren'slanguage usewiththoseofasimilarsurveymadefifteenyearsearlier,MacKinnonfoundadropoffinthe useofGaelicwithinfamilies,amongsiblings,andontheschoolplayground.Theonly improvementsinthepositionofGaelicamongchildrenatthisagerangewereagreatertendency amongEnglishmothertonguechildrentoacquireusableGaelicandanincreasedwillingness amongallprimaryschoolchildrentousebothGaelicandEnglishwiththeteacher,thoughthe useofGaelicalonewiththeteacherhaddroppedtoasmallerpercentagethanintheearlierstudy (MacKinnon,1977:93). 132

ThedataforMacKinnon'sHarrisstudyweregatheredin197274.IntheOuterHebrides,the situationchangeddramaticallywiththecreationoftheWesternIslesregion,justayearafterthe inresidencephaseofMacKinnon'sresearchended.TheWesternIslesCouncilshowedtheir consciousnessoftheregion'suniquelyGaelicspeakingpopulationlevel(approximately81.6 percentbilingualinhabitants)bychoosingtousetheGaelicversionoftheirtitle,thatis, ComhairlenanEilean,andbymakinganearlydeclarationofequalstatusforGaelicandEnglish intheirregion(BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles,1979:6:1). FundedinitiallybytheScottishEducationDepartmentandcosponsoredbythatbodyand ComhairlenanEilean,aBilingualEducationProjectwasbegunin1975.Initsfirstthreeyear phase,theProjectincludedtwentyschoolsinfivepartsoftheOuterHebrides,fromLewisinthe northtoBarrainthesouth.Alloftheschoolswereinruraldistricts,and92percentofthe ProjectschoolpopulationhadsomeknowledgeofGaelic(BilingualPrimaryEducationinthe WesternIsles,1979,1:1,1:7).Bycomparisonwithcurrentreportsonbilingualeducationin IrelandandWales,wheretheeffortshavebeenunderwaymuchlonger,thefirstandsecondphase reports(1979and1981,respectively)oftheWesternIslesBilingualEducationProjecthavethe charmingspontaneityofworkingpapersaswellasadisarmingcandoraboutproblems, obstacles,andunexpectedhazards(adizzyingriseinmediacoveragewasamongthelastof these,forexample).Thedraftversionsusedinthepreparationofthischapterwerepublished subsequentlybyAcair,abilingualpublishingcompanyinLewis.TheveryexistenceofAcairis oneofthemanyrelateddevelopmentssparkedbytheBilingualEducationProject.Acritical problemthroughouttheearlyperiodoftheProjectwasalmosttotallackofreadingmaterials, teachingaids,curriculumunitsfortheteacher,filmsofanykindfortheclasses,andsoforth. Aftervariousattemptstoprovidematerialsonaninformal,trialbasis,thefrustrationsofaslow, trialanderrorapproachtotheproductionofclassroommaterialsinasituationofcolossaldearth anddesperateneedbecameevident:"TheprojecthadtobecomeinvolvedinGaelicpublishing," concludedtheleadership(BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles,1979,4:14:4). Ultimately,theefforttoproduceteachingandlearningaidslednotonlytothepublicationofover twentybooks,butalsotopreparationofatape/slideprogramonseashorelifeandaseriesofTV videocassettesonthelocalenvironment,aswellasconsiderableuseofstillandcinecamerasby teachersandmembersoftheProjectteamformorepersonal(iflessprofessionallypolished)use ofthefilmmediuminlocalclassrooms(BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles, 1979:4:104:12).Moniesformuch,butnotall,oftheproductionofteachingmaterialshavecome notfromtheProject'sownratherlimitedfunding,butfromseparategrantstootherbodieswhich thenworkedinconjunctionwiththeProject. BecauseofthefreshnessoftheProject'swrittenreportsandlikewisetheimpactofabilingual educationprojectinanareawherethenativelanguagewasexcludedfromseriouseducational use(oratsomeperiods,fromanyeducational 133

use)foratleastacentury,someusewillcontinuetobemadeofhomemadecinefilms,despite certaindifficulties,becauseofthepowerofthefilmmedium: OnoneoccasioninUistduringanexhibitionofprojectschoolworktheprojectteam,on animpulse,screenedtwoorthreeshortfilmswhichhadjustreturnedfromprocessing foraroomfullofsecondaryschoolpupilsandteachers.Everyonesatdownandwatched thesesilentuneditedfilms,utterlyabsorbed.Twice.Thenoveltyofseeingone'sown peopleandone'sownenvironmentastheonlycontentinafilmratherthanasa decorativebackgroundtoromanticand/ortravelfilmstransfixedthataudience (BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles,1979:4:11). HappilyfortheProject,theBBChadtakenstepstobegintoprovideGaelicradioprogramsfor schoolchildrennotlongbeforethestartoftheBilingualEducationProject.Thenewlyappointed GaelicSchoolsRadioProducercooperatedfullywiththeProjectfromtheoutset,andtwoyears later,whencommercialtelevisioninScotlandundertookthefirsteverGaelicchildren'stelevision programming,theProject'sassistancewassought.Thus,theeffortsoftheteachersintheirown classrooms,thoseofthethreememberProjectteamwhodirectedoverallplanningandevaluationin thetwentyschools,andtheactivitiesofprintandbroadcastmediawereallcoordinatedtothe benefitoftheProjectoverall. TeacherevaluationsofthesuccessoftheProjectranquitesharplytothepositivesidewhenthe teacherswereformallyinterviewedunderguaranteedanonymitybyspecialistsnotdirectly connectedwiththeBilingualEducationProjectattheendofthefirst(threeyear)phase(Bilingual PrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles,1979:5:15:23).Becauseoftheapparentsuccessofthefirst phase,thesecondthreeyearphasewasimmediatelybegun.Thenumberofschoolsandteachers formallyinvolvedwasexpanded,butastheProject'sownsecondphasereportnotes,bythistimea fairnumberofteachersinschoolsnottargetedbytheProjectandevenindistrictsoutsidethe WesternIslesRegion,weretosomeextentmakinguseofProjectrelatedorgeneratedmaterialsand techniquesandwerecarryingoutasimilarsortofexpandedteachingthroughGaelicprogramon theirowninitiativeorwithinotherregionalauthorities'schemes(BilingualEducationProject, 1981:3:1;BilingualEducationintheWesternIsles,1979:8:1:).(Anexperimentalbilingualprimary educationprogramontheInnerHebrideanIsleofSkyeisthechiefexampleoftheregional authorities'programs.) InstructionviaGaelichasbeenslowtoblossominsecondaryeducationinScotlandascompared withIrelandandWales,butin1983,againintheWesternIsles,thefirstofficialprojectcameinto being.Itinvolvestheteachingofhistory,geography,andCelticstudiesthroughGaelicaswellas English,andhasbeenundertakenintwosecondaryschoolsinLewiswheretheschoolpopulation waslargeenoughtopermitparallelagegroupclasses,onefornativespeakersofGaelicandonefor allothers.Asintheprimarylevelproject,therewasstrongfocusonlocalenvironmentandlocal conditionsasasourceofnaturalinterestandrichmaterialforstudy(Dunn,1984:1and2). 134

FUTUREPROSPECTS InallthreeCelticpopulationsintheBritishIsles,thekeyquestioninmaintenance(evensurvival)or growthisthatofprospectsfortransmissionoftheCelticlanguagetotherisinggeneration.In Ireland,themostseriousproblemsseemtobethestillcontractingnativespeakerpoolinthe Gaeltachtandthediscontinuous,disperseddistributionofthosefluentspeakersproducedbythe relativelylongexperimentinbilingualeducationinthatcountry.TheActionPlanforIrish198386 publishedbyBordnaGaeilgeaddressesthelatterproblemclearlyforthefirsttime(theformer problemhavingbeenfocusedonformanyyearsnow).Proposalsincludetheestablishmentofnew cityprojectsincertaindistrictsofDublinwherefluentspeakers(especiallytherelativelyyoung)can beencouragedbysuchinducementsasentertainmentandrecreationalfacilitiestosocializeanduse theirIrish,andexpansionofanexistingtendencyforIrishspeakersintheurbanareastoclusterin thevicinityofallIrishschoolsbyprovisionofadditionalIrishservicesandfacilitiesinthose vicinities(BordnaGaeilge,n.d.:1516).Thereseemslittledoubtthatatleastsymbolicsupportfor theIrishlanguagewillcontinuestrongintheRepublicofIreland,andthataschoolbookknowledge ofIrishwillcontinuetobecommon.Whethersuchthingscanbetranslatedintothecreationofa healthylanguage,orevensecondlanguage,ofdailylifeisaquestionmuchdebatedinIrelanditself. TheIrishdohavetotheircreditagoodrecordinthepublicationofIrishlanguagematerialsfor childrenandforadultsandanespeciallygoodrecordinthepublicationinEnglishofpopularand scholarlymaterialsfocusingontheCelticpastandonthenatureofCelticcultureandcivilization. AlltheotherCelticareasareintheirdebtforthislast,asareallpeoplegenerallywithaninterestin Celtic,sincesuchmaterialsarenotsoreadilyavailableelsewhere.Irishgovernmentsupportisin partresponsiblefortheabundance,butsurelysoalsoisIrishpoliticalindependence,whichhasled tothedesiretodiscoverthenatureofthesocietyfromwhichtheancestralculturesprang. InScotland,thecreationoftheWesternIslesRegionhasprovedtobeahighlypositivestepfor Gaelic,collectingasitdoesagreatmajorityofGaelicnativespeakersunderasingleregional authority.GeographicalconcentrationintheOuterHebridesisamajoradvantageforGaelic. AlthoughtherearemainlandandInnerHebrideanareaswhichstillhaverelativelyhighnumbersof Gaelicspeakers,theseareagingspeakersandtransmissiontonewgenerationshaslargelyceased. The1981censusshowedonly743childrenagesthreetofourasnativeGaelicspeakers.Ofthese, 403,or54percent,wereintheWesternIsles;inSkye,oneoftheveryfewInnerHebrideanislands withastrongfocusonGaelicinrecentdecades,onlythirtyninechildren(5.2percentofthetotal) wereinthatgroup(AnComunnGaidhealach,1984:n.p.).Countrywide,therewereonly3,800 childrenunderagetenreportedasGaelicspeakersinthe1981census;1,968ofthesewerereported fortheWesternIslesRegion(Census1981,ScotlandGaelicReport,1983:4,9).Thisisaverysmall poolfromwhichenough 135

youngparentscanlaterbedrawntotransmitthelanguagesuccessfully,especiallygiventhe continuingtraditionofoutmigrationfromtheGaelicareas.InScotland,asinIreland,the contractionofheartlandareasinwhichGaelicisthenormaleverydaylanguageisrecognizedas alinguisticemergency.Inbothcountries,concernhasreachedanewhighandmajoreffortsare underwayinbilingualeducation,inconsolidationoflanguagepromotingagencies,inthe devisingofjobopportunities,andsoforthtosloworhaltthetrend.Thecrisisisatarather advancedstage,andonlytimewilltellhowmuchcanbeexpectedfromevenconcentrated efforts. InWales,thesituationissomewhatmorepositivethanineitherIrelandorScotland,thoughnot somuchsoastoinducecomplacency.Ruraldistrictsarestillshowingdeclineinthenumberof nativespeakers,butthesizeofthenativeWelshmiddleclass(whichhasnorealparallelinIrish IrelandorGaelicScotland)andtherelativelylonghistoryofWelshliteracyamongthepopulace aretwofactorsthathavefacilitatedmovementspromotingtheWelshlanguage.Thenotable increaseinthenumberandpercentageofquiteyoungWelshspeakersinthepopulationoverthe pasttwodecadestestifiestogoodsuccessforthebilingualeducationprogramsandseemsto promiseareasonablygoodchanceforthelongtermsurvivaloftheWelshlanguage.Inthecase ofWalesthereissomereasontolookforwardtothe1991censusreport.InScotlandandIreland, too,thatreportmaymakeprognosticationeasier;onecanonlyhopethatitwillalsomakeitmore cheerful. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IammuchendebtedtocolleaguesintheBritishIslesandintheUnitedStatesformaking necessarymaterialsavailableorhelpingmetoobtainthem:CatrinMoseleyinAberystwyth, HywelMoseleyinLondon;SeamusOCiosain(especiallygenerouslyandcopiously)inDublin; CatherineMorrisoninStornowayandCatherineDunninStornoway;Dr.LoisKuter,Brother CharlesQuinn,andProfessorJohnM.JonesinPennsylvania,NewYork,andNewJersey, respectively.Mr.andMrs.WilliamMacKinnonofTobermoryandMs.ElizabethMacRaeof Inverness(formerlyofGolspie)haveformanyyearsfaithfullysentmeweeklynewspapersfrom theWesternandEasternHighlands,respectively,therebyenablingmetostayinclosertouchwith developmentsinvolvingScottishGaelic.SeamusOCiosainkindlyreviewedtheoriginaldraftof thischapterwithreferencetotheIrishlanguagesituation,andIoweanumberofrefinements andcorrectionstohiscarefulscrutiny.Responsibilityforthefinalformulationsandany remainingerrorsoreccentricitiesofemphasisis,ofcourse,myown. BIBLIOGRAPHY AnComunnGaidhealach.1984."Cunntassluaigh1981:Gaidhlig."AithisqnaBlianna[Annual Report]198384.(Nopublisherorplaceofpublicationstated.) 136

BilingualEducationProject.1981.ReportoftheSecondPhase,September1978September1981. (Mimeo.) BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIsles(1979).ReportoftheFirstPhaseoftheBilingual EducationProject,197578.(Mimeo.) BordnaGaeilge.n.d.ActionPlanforIrish19831986.(Noplaceofpublicationandnopublisherare given.) BrandJ.1978.TheNationalMovementinScotland.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. Census1981,ScotlandGaelicReport.1983.Edinburgh:HerMajesty'sStationeryOffice. Census1981.1983.WelshLanguageinWales.London:HerMajesty'sStationeryOffice. ChadwickN.1970.TheCelts.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks. CommitteeonIrishLanguageAttitudesResearch.1975.Report.Dublin:OifigDhioltaFoilseachan Rialtais. CorcoranJ.X.W.P.1979."TheOriginsoftheCelts:TheArchaeologicalEvidence."InTheCelts, ed.N.Chadwick.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,pp.1741. CunliffeB.1979.TheCelticWorld.Maidenhead:McGrawHill. DillonM.,andN.Chadwick.1967.TheCelticRealms.London:WeidenfeldandNicolson. DorianN.C.1978."TheDyingDialectandtheRoleoftheSchools:EastSutherlandGaelicand PennsylvaniaDutch."InInternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation,ed.J.E.Alatis. Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress,pp.64656. .1981.LanguageDeath:TheLifeCycleofaScottishGaelicDialect.Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress. DunnC.M.1984.SocialSubjects:ABilingualApproach.(Mimeo.) DurkaczV.E.1983.TheDeclineoftheCelticLanguages.Edinburgh:JohnDonaldPublishers. EllisP.B.1974.TheCornishLanguageandItsLiterature.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. EllisP.B.,andS.maca'Ghobhainn.1971.TheProblemofLanguageRevival.Inverness:Club Leabhar. FennellD.1981."CanaShrinkingLinguisticMinorityBeSaved?"InMinority52Languages Today,ed.E.Haugen,J.D.McClure,andD.S.Thomson.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress, pp.3239. FilipJ.1981."EarlyHistoryandEvolutionoftheCelts:TheArchaeologicalEvidence".InThe CelticConsciousness,ed.R.O'Driscoll.NewYork:GeorgeBraziller,pp.3350. GreeneD.1981."TheAtlanticGroup:NeoCelticandFaroese."InMinorityLanguagesToday,ed. E.Haugen,J.D.McClure,andD.S.Thomson.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.19. HearnshawL.S.1981.CyrilBurt,Psychologist.NewYork:VintageBooks. HechterM.1975.InternalColonialism:TheCelticFringeinBritishNationalDevelopment,1536 1966.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. JonesB.1974."TheRootsofWelshInferiority."Planet22:5371. KhleifB.B.1980.Language,Ethnicity,andEducationinWales.TheHague:Mouton. LebowR.N.1976.WhiteBritainandBlackIreland:TheInfluenceofStereotypesonColonial Policy.Philadelphia:InstitutefortheStudyofHumanIssues.

LewisE.G.1978a."BilingualisminEducationinWales."InCaseStudiesinBilingualeducation 137

education,ed.B.SpolskyandR.L.Cooper.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse,pp.24990. .1978b."MigrationandtheDeclineoftheWelshLanguage."InAdvancesintheStudyof SocietalMultilingualism,ed.J.A.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,pp.263351. .1980.BilingualismandBilingualEducation:AComparativeStudy.Albuquerque:University ofNewMexicoPress. LochJ.1820.AnAccountoftheImprovementsontheEstatesoftheMarquessofStafford,inthe CountiesofStaffordandSalop,andontheEstateofSutherland.London:Longman,Hurst,Rees, Orme,andBrown. LockwoodW.B.1972.APanoramaofIndoEuropeanLanguages.London:HutchinsonUniversity Library. MacKinnonKenneth.1977.Language,EducationandSocialProcessesinaGaelicCommunity. London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. MacnamaraJ.1966.BilingualismandPrimaryEducation:AStudyofIrishExperience.Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress. .1971."SuccessesandFailuresintheMovementfortheRestorationofIrish."InCanLanguage BePlanned?ed.J.RubinandB.H.Jernudd.EastWestCenter:UniversityPressofHawaii;pp.65 94. McEvedyC.1967.ThePenguinAtlasofAncientHistory.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks. MoodyT.W.,andF.X.Martin,eds.1967.TheCourseofIrishHistory.Cork:MercierPress. MurrayJ.andC.Morrison.1984.BilingualPrimaryEducationintheWesternIslesofScotland. Stornoway,IsleofLewis:Acair. TheObanTimes,December15,1977. OM.S.Cinneide,M.Keane,andM.Cawley.1985.Ms."IndustrialisationandLinguisticChange AmongGaelicSpeakingCommunitiesintheWestofIreland."LanguageProblemsandLanguage Planning.Vol.9:1,316. OS.Ciosain1983."BilingualisminPublicAdministration:TheCaseofIreland."Revistade LlenguaiDret1:1119. OB.Cuiv1969a."TheChangingFormoftheIrishLanguage."InAViewoftheIrishLanguage,ed. B.OCuiv.Dublin:StationeryOffice,pp.2234. .1969b."IrishintheModernWorld."InAViewoftheIrishLanguage,ed.B.OCuiv.Dublin: StationeryOffice,pp.12232. OC.Danachair1969."TheGaeltacht."InAViewoftheIrishLanguage,ed.B.OCuiv.Dublin: StationeryOffice,pp.11221. OT.Domhnallain1977."Ireland:TheIrishLanguageinEducation."LanguageProblemsand LanguagePlanning1:8394. PoulsenJ.H.W.1981."TheFaroeseLanguageSituation."InMinorityLanguagesToday,ed.E. Haugen,J.D.McClure,andD.Thomson.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.14451. QuinnD.B.1966.TheElizabethansandtheIrish.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPressforthe FolgerShakespeareLibrary. TheRestorationoftheIrishLanguage.1965.Dublin:OifigantSolathair. WallM.1969."TheDeclineoftheIrishLanguage."InAViewoftheIrishLanguage,ed.B.OCuiv.

Dublin:StationeryOffice,pp.8190. 138

WelshOffice.1977.EducatingOurChildren:ABackgroundPaperfortheConferenceinWales,22 March1977.WelshEducationOffice. .1983.StatisticsofEducationinWales.GovernmentStatisticalService. WhitePaperontheRestorationoftheIrishLanguage.1965.Dublin:OifigantSolathair. WithersC.W.J.1984.GaelicinScotland16981981:TheGeographicalHistoryofaLanguage. Edinburgh:JohnDonaldPublishers. 139

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 140

7 LANGUAGEINNATIVEEDUCATIONINCANADA BarbaraBurnaby SinceCanadahastwoofficiallanguages(EnglishandFrench)andahostofminoritylanguages, schoolinginthiscountryisprovidedwithaformidablechallengeifitistomeettheneeds, expectations,andrequirementsaffectingitsstudents.Thischapterexaminestheroleoflanguagein schoolingforonegroupofCanadianstudents,thosewhoaredescendantsoftheaboriginalpeoples ofNorthAmerica(Nativepeoples).Bothhistoricallyandinthepresent,schoolingforNative Canadianstudentshasmanifestedavarietyofapproachestorecognizingthelanguagebackgrounds thatNativechildrenbringwiththemtoschoolandtoteachingthemEnglishand/orFrench.Inorder toprovidearealisticpictureofthesemanyapproaches,thischapterwillreportonschoolprograms thatattempttotakeaccountofthespecificlanguagebackgroundsofNativestudents. DEMOGRAPHICFACTORS NativepeopleinCanadamakeupapproximately2percent(about481,000people)ofthetotal population(Canada,StatisticsCanada,198284).Althoughthemajorityliveonreserveoflandset asidefortheirexclusiveuse,theNativepopulationisspreadfairlyevenlyoverthewholecountry.In otherwords,reservescanbefoundindenselysettledindustrialareas,infarmingareas,andin northernareaswherethereislittlesettlementbyotherpeople.Somereservesaresituatedwithinor nexttomajorCanadiancities,whereasothersarefarfromevensmalltownsandcanbereachedonly byplaneorboat.UptoonethirdofNativepeopledonotliveonreserves,andmanyofthesenow liveintownsandcities(CanadaDepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthernDevelopment [DIAND],1980:5,12).Thus,allschooladministrativeauthoritiesacrossthecountrycanexpectto havesomeNativepupils.Inmosthighlypopulatedareas,theyare 141

likelytobeonlyasmallminorityinanyschool,butinsomeisolatedareastheyformtheentire schoolpopulation. LANGUAGEBACKGROUND TheancestrallanguagesofCanada'sNativepeoplesaredividedintoelevenlanguagefamilies,that is,groupsoflanguagesthatcanbeshowntohaveacommonancestor.Thus,alanguagefromone familyisasdifferentfromalanguagefromanotherasEnglishisfrom,say,Korean.Somefamilies arerepresentedbyonlyonelanguage(Haida,Kutenai,andTlingit),whiletheothershaveanumber oflanguages.Thelargest,Algonquian,hasnine.AtotaloffiftythreeNativelanguagesarespokenin Canadatoday.Anumberofthese,ortheircloserelatives,arealsospokenintheUnitedStatesorin Greenland(Sturtevant,1978).InCanada,eachlanguagefamilycoversaparticulararea,although theseareasoftenpartiallyoverlap.Whatthismeansintermsofschoolingisthat,althoughalarge numberofNativelanguageshavetobetakenintoaccount,itisthegeneralrulethatanyoneschool willhaveNativestudentsfromonlyoneNativelanguagebackground. Englishand,tosomedegree,FrenchhavestronglyinfluencedtheuseofNativelanguagesin Canada,particularlyinrecentdecades.ManypeoplewhosemothertongueisaNativelanguagenow speakEnglishorFrenchaswellorexclusively.OtherNativepeoplehaveEnglishorFrenchastheir mothertongue,andalmostallofthesedonotspeakaNativelanguage.Table7.1showspercentages regardingmothertongue,languagemostoftenspokeninthehome,andabilitytospeakanofficial languagecalculatedfromthe1981CensusofCanadaonthebasisofthepopulationwhodeclared themselvestobeethnicallyNative.ThesefiguresindicatethatEnglishissostronganinfluencein NativecommunitiesthatitisbecomingthemothertongueofthemajorityofNativepeople,andthat itisbecomingthehomelanguageofsomeNativepeoplewhosemothertongueisaNativelanguage. ThereisnoreciprocaltrendforthosewhosemothertongueisanofficiallanguagetospeakaNative languageathome.EnglishisthehomelanguageofaboutasmanyNativechildrenwhohavenot beentoschoolasthosewhoareinschool,althoughagreaternumberofchildrenwhoarebelow schoolagedonotspeakanyofficiallanguage.Inotherwords,itappearsthatschoolingisnotthe mostprominentfactorinlanguageshifttoEnglish.ThetotalFrenchspeakingpopulationofCanada isaboutaquarterofthetotalpopulation,yetNativepeoplehavenotassociatedthemselves linguisticallywithFrenchverymuchexceptincertainregionsofQuebec.Fromthefiguresit appearsthatFrenchislosinggroundamongNativepeople.(SeeBurnabyandBeaujot,forthcoming, forfurtheranalysisoflanguagedataontheNativepeoplesfromthe1981censusfigures.) Totheextentthatselfreportedlanguagedatasuchascensusfigurescanbereliedontoaccurately representhowpeopleactuallyuselanguage,thesefiguresindicateastrongtrendtowardtheuseof Englishand,toalimiteddegree,French 142

Table7.1 1981CensusinCanada:EthnicallyNativePopulation(inPercentage) TotalbyAge MotherTongue English 62.42 71.38 70.29 French 4.62 2.68 2.43 Native 28.69 23.58 25.03 Other 2.21 2.37 2.35 HomeLanguage English 71.66 74.72 70.62 French 3.95 2.54 2.11 Native 22.18 20.87 20.51 Other 2.21 1.87 1.76 OfficialLanguage English 85.75 83.63 89.68 French 3.62 2.8 3.26 Both 4.96 1.17 2.71 Neither 5.68 12.41 4.35 Notes:1.Columnsmaynotaddupto100%becauseofroundingprocedures usedbytheauthorandtheCensusofficials. 2.Figures,particularlyunder'other',maybecontaminatedby, peopleincorrectlyidentifyingthemselvesasNativepeople. tothedetrimentofNativelanguagesamongNativepeopleinCanada.Analysisoffiguresfrom thecensus(Burnaby,1980,1984;BurnabyandBeaujot,forthcoming;Canada,StatisticsCanada, 1984)andM.K.Foster(1982)indicatethatsomeNativelanguagesareindangerofbecoming extinct,whileothersstillhaveareasonablylargenumberofspeakers.YoungerNativepeople seemtouseofficiallanguagesmorethantheirelders.ThedegreeofisolationofNative communitiesfromtherestofthepopulationhassomethingtodowithNativelanguageretention, butisolationalonedoesnotaccountforthetrendtotheofficiallanguagesentirely(Burnaby, 1980;BurnabyandBeaujot,forthcoming). LEGALANDADMINISTRATIVEFACTORS SoonaftertheconfederationofCanadain1867,thefederalgovernmentbegantogenerateand adaptabodyoflegislationregardingNativepeoples,mostofwhichfallsundertheIndianAct.It includedandcontinuestoincludeaspectsoflawsandtreatiesrelatingtoNativepeoplewhich werebroughtintobeingbeforeconfederation.TheIndianActhasevolvedcontinuallysincethen, andtreatieshavebeensignedwithNativegroupsasrecentlyasthe1950s.The 143 AllAges 491,460 Age05 50,460 Age614 115,935

importantaspectoftheIndianActforthepresentdiscussionisthatthemajorityofNativepeoplein Canadaareindividuallyrecognizedbylawtobe"Indians."Thisstatusispassedonpatrilineally. PeoplewhoarelegallyIndiansareaffectedbylawsandservicesthatreferspeciallyandoften exclusivelytothem. AnumberofpeoplewhoaredescendedfromtheaboriginalinhabitantsofCanadadonothave Indianstatus.ThisgroupincludespeopleknownasnonstatusIndians,thosewhoseancestorsdidnot getstatusforvariousreasonswhenstatuswasfirstbeingestablished,orthosewhohavesincelostit throughseverallegalprocesses.ManynonstatusIndianshavethesameaboriginalbloodquantumas statusIndiansandliveinaccordancewiththesameculturaltraditions.Inaddition,therearethe Metis,agroupofpeopledescendedfromNativeandEuropeanancestors,whodidnotgetstatus originallybecausetheywereseentobeculturallydifferentfrompurebloodNativepeoplewhen IndianstatuswasbeingestablishedamongNativepeopleontheprairies.Finally,therearetheInuit (Eskimos)whogenerallyliveapartfromotherNativegroupsinthefarnorth.Since1939,the federalgovernmenthasprovidedsimilarservicestothemastostatusIndians,buttheirlegal positionisnotestablishedinlegislationinthesamewaythatIndianstatusis. InCanada,theresponsibilityforeducationrestswiththeprovinces(Canada'stermfor"states"),not withthefederalgovernment.Thus,thetenprovincesandthetwoterritorieshavetheirown educationactsandadministertheirownschoolsystems.Thefederalgovernmenttransferssome moniestotheprovincesforcertaineducationalactivitiesitwantstopromote,buttheprovinces administerthatmoneythemselves.Itdoesnotlegislatefundstobeadministeredbythefederal governmentitselfforspecialeducationalpurposes(cf.thefederalJohnsonO'MalleyActinthe UnitedStateswhichsupportscertainaspectsofeducationforNativeAmericanstudentsdirectly fromthefederalcoffersapartfromstatefinancialprovisionfortheeducationofIndianstudents). MetisandnonstatusIndianstudentsattendprovincialandterritorialschools,andanyspecialneeds oraspirationstheymighthavearedealtwithasfarastheprovincialgovernmentorlocalschool systemseefit.Inuitstudentsareaspecialcasesincemostofthemliveinisolatedareas.Provisions fortheireducationwillbementionedinmoredetailbelow. ThelegislativeanomalyinthissituationisthattheeducationofstatusIndianstudentsisthedirect responsibilityofthefederalgovernmentthroughtheDepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthern Development(DIAND).Originally,thefederalgovernmentcontractedouttheworkofIndian education,mainlytoreligiousgroups.Atthattimetherewasnopolicygoverningtheeducationof allstatusIndianstudents.Inpractice,thateducationoftenconsistedofacombinationofagricultural orindustrialtrainingwithsomeacademicteaching. AfterWorldWarII,DIANDtookdirectcontrolofIndianeducation.Itbuiltandranelementary schoolsonreserves.Theseschoolsbegantofollowthecurriculumoftheprovinceinwhichthey werelocatedandhiredprovincially 144

certifiedteachers.InareasinwhichstatusIndianchildrenlivedclosetoprovincialschools,DIAND alsobegantomakeagreementswithprovincialgovernmentsorindividualschoolboardstoeducate thesechildreninprovincialschools,theirtuitionbeingpaidbythefederalgovernment.Virtuallyall statusIndianhighschoolstudentsattendprovincialschools. In1972,inresponsetoa1969federalgovernmentpolicystatementthatadvocatedtheabolitionof IndianstatusandspecialservicestoIndians(Canada,StandingCommitteeoftheHouseof CommonsonIndianAffairs,1969),thenationalNativeassociationofthedayissuedastatement calledIndianControlofIndianEducation(NationalIndianBrotherhood,1972)whichoutlinedthe positionthateducationforIndianchildrenshouldcontinuetobefinancedbythefederalgovernment andthatitshouldbeunderthecontrolofIndianpeople.DIANDacceptedthispositionasthebasis foritseducationalpolicyin1973,andsincethattimepartialortotalcontroloffederalschoolshas beenhandedovertosomelocalbands(thegovernmentofNativegroups,usuallyreserve populations).Theadministrativeandlegalpositionofbandcontrolledschoolsisstillsomewhat vaguesincetheyareneitherfederallyadministerednoraretheyprovincialschools.(SeeTschanz, 1980;Burnaby,1980;Howard,1983,forfurtherdetailsofthehistoricaldevelopmentofNative educationpolicy.) Insomeareasofthecountry,thisgeneraladministrativepatternforNativeeducationisalteredfor historicalorgeographicreasons.InthenorthernpartsoftheprairieprovincesManitoba, Saskatchewan,andAlbertaDIANDandtheprovincialgovernmentshavecombinedforcesto provideeducationtotheNativeandnonNativeinhabitantsoftheseareasinwhichthepopulationis scatteredandcommunitiesareisolated.InnorthernQuebec,wheretheQuebecgovernmentmadean agreementwiththeNativepopulationtofacilitateahugehydroelectricpowerproject,twoNative administrativeareasweresetup,onefortheCreeandtheotherfortheInuit(Canada,Statutes, 1977;Richardson,1975).Ineachoftheseareas,theNativepeoplecontroltheirownschoolboard whichoperatesasaregularprovincialschoolboard. Inthepast,educationintheYukonandNorthwestTerritorieswasadministereddirectlybythe federalgovernment,sotherewasnodistinctionbetweenfederalschoolingforNativeornonNative peoplethere.Inthelastdecade,thesetwoterritoriesestablishedgovernmentsmuchlikethoseofthe provinces,includingdepartmentsofeducation.SinceNativepeopleformarelativelylarge percentageofthepopulationintheterritoriesincomparisonwiththepercentagesintheprovinces, theyhavemorechanceatdemocraticcontrolnowthattheirgovernmentsareelected.Newfoundland andLabrador,aprovincethatdidnotjoinCanadianconfederationuntil1948,treatsitsNative citizensasanyothers.Therefore,theeducationalneedsoftheIndianandInuitinhabitantsare addressedbytherelevantprovincialschoolboards,withsupplementaryfundingprovidedbythe federalgovernmentchaneledthroughtheprovincialgovernment. 145

LANGUAGEINEDUCATIONPRACTICES RoleofOfficialLanguages ThenorminCanadaisthateducationwillbethroughthemediumofoneoftheofficial languages,EnglishorFrench.ThisholdsastrueforeducationforNativepeopleasforother citizens.ThereisnodoubtthatNativeparentsacrossthecountrytodayvaluetheopportunitythat schoolingprovidesfortheirchildrentolearnoneorbothoftheofficiallanguages(National IndianBrotherhood,1972).Theabilitytospeakanofficiallanguageisseenasessentialfor participationintheeconomicandlargeradministrativesystemsofthecountry.Thedegreeto whichthedevelopmentofofficiallanguageskillscanbeaccomplishedinconcertwiththe developmentofNativelanguageskillsaswellisthesubjectofconsiderabledebate. Historically,educatorsofNativestudentshavetakenessentiallytwopositionsontheroleof EnglishandFrenchasthemediumofinstructionvisvisthatoftheNativelanguages.Fromthe timeofearlycontactbetweenEuropeansandtheNativeinhabitantsuntilwellintothiscentury, therewereEuroCanadianswhotooktheattitudethatitwasvaluabletoprovideEuropeanstyle educationforNativepeople,butthatifNativepeopleweretobesuccessfulinlearningwhatwas beingtaught,itwouldbebetterthattheybetaughtintheirownlanguages.Mostofthese educatorsweremissionaries,andtheprimarysubjectoftheirteachingwasChristianity.Often theydevelopedwritingsystemsfortheNativelanguagesoftheirarea,andtheytaughtNative peopletousethem.Theimplicationhereisthatthecontentismoreimportantthanthemedium andthatNativepeoplemaynotneedtolearnanofficiallanguage.Ithassometimesalsoimplied arespectforthepowerandintegrityofNativelanguagesandcultures. Thisapproachhaswaned,particularlyinthiscentury,asNativepeoplehavebecomemore integratedintoofficiallanguagespeakingsocietyandastheChristianreligionhasbecomeless ofapartoftheregulareducationsystems.InmanyschoolsforNativespeakingchildren, however,ChristianreligiouseducationisstilltaughtintheNativelanguage,eventhoughmost othersubjectsaretaughtinanofficiallanguage(Tschanz,1980;Howard,1983;Toohey,1982; Burnaby,1984). TheotherapproachtothelanguageofNativeeducationisthatNativepeoplemustlearn,andin somecasesbeforcedtolearn,EnglishorFrench.FromearlytimesofcontactwithEuropeans, NativepeoplehaveshownaninterestinEuropeaneducationandafacilityforlearningEuropean languagesinoroutofformalschooling.NativeviewsonlearningEuropeanlanguages notwithstanding,inmanycasesEuroCanadianinstitutionsfeltcalledupontoforcetrainingon Nativepeoplewhodidnotreadilypresentthemselvestobeeducated(Tschanz,1980).Themost commonmeansofaccomplishingthistaskwastoremoveyoungchildrenfromtheirhomestoa residentialsituationinwhichtheycouldbesurroundedwiththeEnglishorFrenchlanguageand disciplinediftheyused 146

theirNativetongue.WhilethisapproachwasusedinisolatedcasesinCanadaasearlyasthe seventeenthcentury(Patterson,1972:10911),itbecamethenormfromthelatenineteenth centuryuntilthe1950sasthefederalgovernmentattemptedtoimplementuniversalcompulsory educationamongNativepeople(Hawthorn,1967;IndianChiefsofAlberta,1970). ThisapproachimpliestheexertionofthepowerofEuroCanadiansocietyandtheattemptto forceNativepeopletoassimilatetoitsnorms.SomeNativepeoplehaveassumedthatformal educationintheEuropeanstyleautomaticallymeantlearningEnglishorFrenchandthatitwasa valuableexerciseforthem,butothershavebeensubjectedtoitunwillingly.Today,thefactthat EnglishorFrenchisthemediumofinstructionforalmostallschoolingforNativechildrenis acceptabletoNativeparentsbecausetheyfeelthatthechildrenmustlearnanofficiallanguage (e.g.,Tanner,1982).TheimportantpointinthiscontextisthatstrongfeelingsremaininNative communitiesabouttherolesthatofficiallanguageshaveplayedineducationandthestatusof Nativelanguagesinrespecttothem(e.g.,NationalIndianBrotherhood,1972;Ontario,Ministry ofEducation,1975;CurriculumDevelopmentTeam,1979).Acomplicatingfactoristhe changingadministrativeandeconomicrolesofofficiallanguagesinNativecommunities (Burnaby,1985).Thewaysinwhicheducationalprogramshavebeenmodifiedtomakesuch schoolingappropriategiventheneedsandexpectationsoftheNativecommunitywillbe discussedbelow. WhichOfficialLanguage? Insomepartsofthecountry,therearedisputesoverwhichofficiallanguagewillbethemain mediumofinstructioninNativeeducation.Forthemostpart,thesedisputesdonotaffectNative people,butinFrenchspeakingQuebecrecentlyaccommodationshavebeenmadeforNative people.InwesternandnorthernQuebec,Nativepeoplehavetraditionallyhadclosertieswith EnglishspeakingOntariothanwiththeFrancophonemajoritypopulationofQuebec.Thosewho spokeanofficiallanguagealmostallchoseEnglish.Inthepastdecade,Quebechascreated legislationandpoliciesintendedtomakeFrenchtheonlyofficiallanguageofprovincialaffairs andbusiness(Quebec,NationalAssembly,1977).SinceDIANDprovidedEnglishmedium schoolingandadministeredlocalaffairsinEnglishintheEnglishspeakingNativecommunities, Quebec'sinitiativesposedfewproblems. WhentheagreementwasnegotiatedbetweenQuebecandtheCreeandInuittomakewayforthe hydroelectricpowerproject(BurnabyandMackenzieinBurnaby,1985;Richardson,1975),the issueofofficiallanguagesintheschoolscameupsincetheseschoolswouldnowbecomeregular provincialschoolsunderNativeschoolboards.Quebecrecognizedthetraditionalassociation withEnglishofNativepeopleinthisareaandforatleastthetimebeingwaiveditsgeneralruling thatFrenchwouldnormallybethemediumofinstruction(Quebec,NationalAssembly,1976). Butthepowerprojectandothereconomicfactorshave 147

alsobroughttheseNativepeopleintoclosercontactwithFrancophoneQuebecemploymentand government.Theresultisthatinthenineteencommunitiesaffected,eachwithfromaboutsix hundredtofifteenhundredinhabitants,thereisanEnglishmediumandaFrenchmedium school.Parentsseemtobeinclinedtosendsomeoftheirchildrentooneandsometotheother, apparentlytoensurethatthefamilyandthecommunitywillcollectivelybeabletomakeuseof whateveradvantagestherearetospeakingeachofthelanguages(BurnabyandMackenziein Burnaby,1985). Onefurtherpointregardingtheroleoftheofficiallanguagesmustbebroughtouthere.It involvesthelearningofasecondofficiallanguage.Sincethelate1960s,therehasbeenan increasedinterestinthemajoritycultureAnglophonesectionsofthecountrytoensurethat childrenlearnFrenchinschoolbecausechangesinlegislationandpoliciesatthefederallevel havemeantthataccesstojobsinthefederalcivilserviceisincreasedforthosewhoarebilingual inEnglishandFrench.MostprovincialschoolsnowofferFrenchasacompulsorysubjectand evenasanoptionalmediumofinstructiontoAnglophonechildrenattheelementaryand secondarylevel(Canada,Statutes,196869;seealsoGenesee,Chapter8ofthisvolume). ForNativeeducation,theincreasingprofileofFrenchintheprovincialschoolsystemsis beginningtoprovideaconflictwithNativeeffortstoestablishandmaintaintheteachingof NativelanguagesintheelementaryschoolsinNativecommunitiesinwhichEnglishisthe officiallanguageused.FederalelementaryschoolsgenerallydonotofferFrenchasasubjectof instructioninAnglophoneareas,althoughmostprovincialschoolsdo.Provincialschoolsthat teachNativechildrenthroughtuitionagreementswiththefederalgovernmentmaysubstitute NativelanguageclassesforFrenchclassesatfederalexpense.Themainproblemswiththis arrangementarisewhentheNativechildrenenterhighschoolandmustcompetewithother childrenwhohavestudiedFrenchthroughelementaryschool.Inaddition,someNativeparents havevoicedthefeelingthatifFrenchwillgivenonNativechildrenaneconomicadvantagein laterlife,thentheywouldlikeNativechildrentohavethesameadvantage.Thequestionofhow manysubjectscanbesqueezedintooneschoolcurriculumbecomescontentious.Theprocessof decidingonprioritiesbetweenFrenchandNativelanguageteachingisjustbeginning,but promisestobedifficultforsometimetocome. TEACHINGTHEOFFICIALLANGUAGES NativeMotherTongueSpeakers MostmothertonguespeakersofNativelanguageswhohavelearnedtospeakanofficial languageinCanadadidsobysubmersioninanofficiallanguagedominantinschool,ina hospital,inaworksituation,orthelike.MethodsofteachingEnglishorFrenchasasecond language(ESL/FSL)werevirtually 148

unknowninschoolsforNativespeakingchildrenuntiltenorfifteenyearsagoandarestillfar fromuniversallypracticedtoday(Burnaby,Nichols,andToohey,1980;BurnabyandElson, 1982;Toohey,1982).Sincethe1960s,theteachingofESL/FSLtononEnglish/Frenchspeaking immigrantshasdevelopedgreatly,and,tosomesmallextent,theprogressmadeintheimmigrant fieldhasrubbedoffoneducationforNativespeakingpeople. Generalfiguresarenotavailableregardingthenumberofteacherstrainedinsecondlanguage teachingmethodologyandemployedinNativespeakingcommunities,butatleastoneregional studyindicatedthattherewereveryfew(Burnaby,NicholsandToohey,1980).Supervisorystaff infederalschoolsarenotlikelytohavehadESL/FSLtrainingeither,althoughtheNorthwest Territories,thecombinedjurisdictionprovincial/federalschooladministrationsintheprairie provinces,theQuebecNativeschoolboards,andsomeprovincialsystemsputconsiderable emphasisonthisqualificationforitssupervisorypersonnelinNativespeakingareas. SupervisorswhoareexperiencedinESL/FSLarelikelytodotheirbesttoprovideinservice trainingonthistopic.ThereisoftensomematerialforESL/FSLteachingavailableinschoolsfor Nativespeakingchildren,butteachersdonotusuallyknowhowtouseit,andtheycomplainthat themethodologiesareunsuitableforthelearningstylesoftheNativechildrenandthatthe contentisculturallyinappropriate(Burnaby,NicholsandToohey,1980;BurnabyandElson, 1982). ComparedwiththeteachingofESL/FSLtoimmigrants,officiallanguagetrainingforNative speakingstudentshassomeuniqueproblems.First,therearemanymorenonEnglish/French speakingimmigrantchildreninCanadianschoolsthanthereareNativespeakingchildren.The 1981censusshowedthattherewere313,850childrenbelowtheageoffifteenwhosemother tonguewasnotEnglish,French,oraNativelanguage.Therewere40,780Nativemothertongue childreninthesameagerange.ThefactthatNativeeducationisdividedamongmany educationaljurisdictions(federal,tenprovincial,twoterritorial,andmanyseparateband controlled)doesnotmakemattersanyeasier.TeacherswhoworkwithNativespeakingstudents belongtodifferentunionsaccordingtotheeducationalsystemtheyworkfor.Hence,therehas beenlittlepressurefromthelargeprofessionalorganizationsofteacherstoforcethevarious schoolsystemstoimproveconditions.TheproblemsofNativespeakingchildrengetlostinthe manyconcernsoflargeprovincialsystems,andfederalschoolingandNativeschoolboards dealingwithNativespeakingchildrenhaveasenseofisolationandpovertyofresources (BurnabyandElson,1982). ThisisolationisarealfactorsincemostNativespeakingchildrenliveinsmall(lessthanone thousandpopulation)communitiesscatteredacrossCanada'svastnorthernareas(Canada, DIAND,1980:12),andvaluableresourcesmustbespentjusttotransportmaterialsand personnel.Regularvisitsbysupervisorsoraccesstoinservicetrainingareverydifficultunder theseconditions.Underthecircumstances,itisnotsurprisingthatthereisahighrateofteacher turnoverin 149

schoolsattendedbyNativespeakingchildren.Bycomparison,theteachingofESL/FSLto immigrantchildrenismuchlessdifficultsinceimmigrantsmostlymigratetothelargecitiesand theirchildrenattendprovincialschools. TherearemorefundamentaldifferencesbetweenNativespeakingandimmigrantstudents, however.OneinvolvesthefactthatchildrenfromNativespeakingcommunitiesaremorelikelyto havedifferentattitudestolearningthelanguageofthemajoritysocietyofthecountryfromthose ofthechildrenofimmigrants(MalloninBurnabyandElson,1982).Theirparentsdidnot deliberatelychoosetoimmersethemselvesinthisalienlanguageandculture.Theygenerallylive incommunitiesthataretoaconsiderabledegreeisolatedfromtheculturalandeconomic activitiesofthemajority. Asecondpointiscloselyassociatedwiththefirst.Nativespeakingchildrenarenotsurrounded withoralandwrittenusesoftheofficiallanguagesinthewayinwhichimmigrantchildreninthe citiesare.Radioandtelevisionhavereachedmostisolatedcommunitiesinthepastfewyears,but social,economic,andadministrativeinteractioninNativespeakingcommunitiesisintheNative language.Theschoolisgenerallytheonlyplaceinwhichtheofficiallanguagesarenormally heard.Immigrantchildrenareoftenplacedinclassesnotonlywithchildrenwhoaremother tonguespeakersofEnglish/French,butalsowithotherimmigrantchildrenfromlanguage backgroundsotherthantheirown.TheschoolmatesofNativespeakingchildrengenerallyall speakthesameNativelanguage,perhapswiththeexceptionofoneortwoofficiallanguage speakingchildrenofteachers.Thus,whileimmigrantchildrenaremotivatedbyawishto integrateandbythedemandsofsurvivalintheirnewsurroundings,Nativespeakingchildren liveinaworlddominatedbytheirownlanguageandculture.Nativespeakingchildrenarenot presentedwiththemanyopportunitiestohear,read,andpracticetheofficiallanguagethat immigrantchildrenare(BurnabyandMacKenzieinBurnaby,1985). Thus,teachersofNativespeakingchildrenhaveconsiderablebasisforsayingthattheirneedsin termsofESL/FSLteachingaredifferentfromthoseofteachersofimmigrantchildren.Theyhave arighttocomplainthattheyteachunderdifficultconditions.Theycanalsorightlycomplainthat theyhavevirtuallynoappropriatematerialstoworkfrom.Nativechildrenwhoseschoolbusisa sleighpulledbyasnowmobileandwhoseambulanceisasmallplane,forexample,havemajor culturalproblems,muchlesslanguageproblems,inunderstandingtheworldofelevatorsandcars depictedinmaterialsforimmigrantsandmajoritysocietychildren.PublishingfirmsinCanada produceverylittlematerialdirectlyfortheCanadianmarketintheESLfield,althoughFSLfor majoritycultureCanadianchildrenisquitewellsupported.Governmentsproducesomesupport materialsforESL,mostlywithafocusonimmigrantsorteachingasecondofficiallanguage.The largerschoolsystemsservingNativestudentsareproducingtheirownsecondlanguagematerials (e.g.,theQuebecNativeschoolboardsandthegovernmentoftheNorthwestTerritories,and federalandprovincialeducationalagenciesinOntario),butonthewholeteachersofNative speakingchildrenmust 150

Table7.2 NativeSchoolAchievementbyMotherTonguePercentages MotherTongue Englishand French Ameridian Inkutitut

LevelofEducation LessthanGrade5 6 26.5 46.6 Grades58 23.3 34.4 26.3 Grades910 24.1 16.2 9.9 SecondaryCertificate 19.1 8 4.2 PostSecondary 24.4 13.9 12.5 UniversityDegree 2.4 1 .7 Note:Columnsmaynotaddupto100%becauseofroundingprocedures usedbytheauthorandCensusofficials. makeoradaptthemajorityofthematerialsneededfortheirlanguageprograms(Burnabyand Elson,1982). Theresultofallthis,predictably,isthatNativespeakingchildrenasagroupdonotdoaswellin schoolasEnglishspeakingNativechildren(Canada,DIAND,1980:49).Onestudydonecomparing theuseofEnglishinvariouslanguagefunctionsbetweenagroupofchildrenfromaNative speakingcommunityandfromacomparableEnglishspeakingNativecommunityshowedthat childrenfromgradesixinaNativespeakingcommunitydidnotscoreashighlyasthegradetwo childreninacomparableEnglishspeakingcommunity(Toohey,1982). EnglishMotherTongueSpeakers NativechildrenwhosemothertongueisEnglisharealsotheobjectofconcernamongeducatorsand parents.AlthoughtheygenerallydobetterinschoolthanNativespeakingchildren,asagroupthey donotdoaswellasthemajorityofthepopulation.Table7.2showsthelevelsofschoolingachieved byethnicallyNativepeopleagedfifteenyearsorolderandnotattendingschool,brokendownby mothertongue.Thefiguresgivenarepercentagesoftotalsgiveninthe1981census. Table7.3showsthelevelsofeducationachievement,calculatedaspercentages,forthewhole Canadianpopulationoffifteenyearsofageorolder.Unfortunately,thepublishedcensusfiguresdo notmatchtheformatasdisplayedinTable7.2fortheNativepeoples,butthedifferencesingeneral trendsareevidentnonetheless. Educatorsareconcernedthat,althoughmostNativechildrenspeakEnglish 151

Table7.3 SchoolAchievement,TotalPopulationofCanadanAged15Plus,PercentagesofTotal LevelofEducation LessthanGrade9 20.0 HighSchoolwithoutgraduation 31.3 SecondaryCertificate 13.9 PostSecondary 27.6 UniversityDegree 8.0 astheirfirstlanguage,theyarestillnotexperiencedenoughwithEnglishasthemajoritysociety usesittooperateuptotheirpotentialintheeyesoftheschoolsystems(BurnabyandElson, 1982).Because"IndianEnglish"hasnotbeenmuchstudiedinCanada(Shrofel,1985),itisnot possibletoidentifytherolethatdialectvariantsofEnglishusedbyNativepeoplemightplayin creatingthegapbetweentheschoolachievementofEnglishspeakingNativechildrenandthatof themajorityofCanadianschoolchildren.Therehasbeenacallforfurtherstudyofthepotential fortheuseofstandardEnglishasaseconddialectmethodwithNativechildrenwhocometo schoolspeakingEnglishbutwhoarenotsucceedinginschoolaswellaschildrenfromother culturalgroupsinthecountry(BurnabyandElson,1982).However,K.Toohey(1985)contends thatdialectaldifferencespersearenotlikelytobethecriticalfactorsaffectingtheschool achievementofNativechildren. CulturalfactorssuchastheNativechildren'slearningstyles(Brooks,1978;Bowd,1977)andthe lackoflearningmaterialsthatrelatetotheirhomeandcommunityexperiencesmayplayastrong part.TheroleofliteracyinmanyNativecommunitieshasalsobeenconsideredasapossible sourceofthemisfitbetweentheschool'sexpectationsandtheNativestudents'experience (BurnabyandMacKenzieinBurnaby,1985;Burnaby,1982;Philips,1975).Ofcourse,therehas neverbeenanycomprehensiveexplanationofwhychildrenfromthelowersocioeconomiclevels ofmostsocietiesdonotnormallyachieveuptotheleveloftheirmoreadvantagedpeersin school.Ananalysisofthe1971andearliercensusfiguresregardingoccupationalprestigeamong ethnicgroupsinCanadashowedNativepeopletoberankedanomalouslylow.Thisfinding promptedtheresearcherstosuggestthat"structuraldiscrimination"mightbeindicatedto accountforNativespeoples'placeatthebottomoftheoccupationalladder(Lanphier,Lam, ClodmanandSomogyi,1980:23031). 152

THENATIVELANGUAGES NativeLanguageasaSubjectofInstructionPrograms Sinceabout1970,Nativelanguageshavebeentaughtasthesubjectofinstructioninsome schoolsforNativechildrennot,asmentionedabove,attheinstigationofnonNativeeducators, butontheinitiativesofNativepeoplewhowereconcernedthatNativechildrenweregrowingup unabletospeaktheirancestrallanguage(ClarkeandMacKenzie,1980a).Thismovementhas growntotheextentthataboutonethirdofNativeschoolchildrenarenowabletostudytheir ancestrallanguageasasubjectofinstructioninelementaryschooling(Foster,1982).Native childrenwhocometoschoolspeakingaNativelanguagearesometimesgivenorallanguage developmentandNativeliteracytraining,buttheseprogramsdonotnecessarilyhaveahigh priorityaccordingtoparents'views(Tanner,1982).English/FrenchspeakingNativechildren studyNativelanguagesassecondlanguages,thelattertypeofprogrambeingthemostprevalent sincethemajorityofNativechildrendonotspeakaNativelanguageastheirmothertongue.The parentsandgrandparentsofthesechildrenarevocallyconcernedthatmostofCanada'sNative languagesareatriskbecauseofthepreferenceforofficiallanguageusewithintheNative populations(Burnaby,1984).FeweducationaljurisdictionsinCanadaconsistentlyprovide Nativelanguageprogramsintheirarea(ClarkeandMacKenzie,1980a). ThechallengesfacingNativelanguageteachingarelegion.MostNativelanguagesdonothavea prestigedialectorastandardizedorthography(Burnaby,1985).Thishindersattemptstocreate learningmaterialsonanythingmorethanacommunitybycommunitybasis,andevenresultsin dissensionswithincommunitiesaboutthewaywrittenmaterialsarespelled(e.g.,Mailhot, DrapeauinBurnaby,1985).Forexample,Ojibwe(calledChippewaintheUnitedStates)is spokenbyasmanyasthirtythousandpeopleinCanada(Foster,1982).Ithasmanydialects(e.g., Saulteaux,Odawa,Algonquian),someofwhichareconsideredtobeseparatelanguagesbytheir speakers.TwosetsofcharactersareusedtowriteOjibwetheromanalphabetandasetof syllabiccharacters.Traditionally,Ojibwecommunitieshaveusedoneortheother.Thereisno widelyacceptedstandardforspellingineithersystem.Governments,Nativeorganizations, teachers,andotherindividualshaveproducedlearningmaterials,dictionaries,newspapers,and bookletsinOjibwe,buteachitemhasonlyarelativelysmallreadership.Therolesplayedby communityorpersonalloyaltytooneorthographictradition,mutualintelligibilityofdialectsand spellingconventions,andcommunitysenseofownershipofwrittenmaterialhavenotbeen studiedtodeterminehowwidelytheavailableOjibwematerialswillbecomprehendedand acceptedbyOjibwespeakers. TherelativelynewphenomenonofteachingliteracyintheNativelanguagestochildrenwhoare usedtoastandardizedspellingsystemintheofficiallanguagehascreatednewchallengesand controversiesaroundNativeliteracysincethese 153

childrenexpectwordstobeconsistentlyspelled(Drapeau,Mailhot,MacKenzieinBurnaby,1985). MostNativelanguageinstructorspreparethemajorityofthematerialstheyuseinclassthemselves, oftenwithoutthehelpofanyotherprofessionalresources.Therestoftheschoolstaffisindifferent orfeelshelplessbecauseoftheirlackofknowledgeofthelanguageandcultureinvolved.Thelarger educationalsystemshaveproducedcurriculumguidesforsomeofthemajorNativelanguagesinthe pastdecade,butthesegenerallyhavenotbeeneffectivelyimplementedintheappropriateschools.It isaskingagooddealoftrainedteacherstogointoclasstoteachasubjectwithoutanycurriculum guidesorappropriatelearningmaterials.WeareaskingagooddealmoreoftheNativelanguage instructorssincetheynormallyhavelittleornotrainingandnoinformedsupervision(Burnaby, NicholsandToohey,1980;BurnabyandElson,1982). ApartfromthequestionsregardingstandardizationoftheNativeorthographiesandacceptanceof dialecttobeusedinteachingmaterialsasmentionedabove,therearetechnicalissuesthatmakethe productionofmaterialsforNativelanguageteachingdifficult.ManyorthographiesforNative languagesuseauniquesetofwrittencharacters(e.g.,CreeandInuktitut)oratleastusediacritics thatcannotbereproducedonanordinaryEnglishorFrenchtypewriter.Amplifythisproblemof producingmaterialsbythenumberoflanguages(andwritingsystemsusedforeachlanguagein somecases)anditisapparentthattheresourcesforproducingandreproducingmaterialsfor instructionineachNativelanguagearereducedtonearzero.Editorialfacilitiesandeven proofreadersformaterialsdonotexistastheydoforstandardizedlanguages(Burnaby,Nichols,and Toohey,1980;Mallon,HebertandLindley;GuerinandSawyerinBurnaby,1985). ThetrainingofNativelanguageinstructorsiscircumscribedbythefactthatthosewhoarethemost proficientspeakersareoftenthosewiththeleastformaleducation.Inschoolsystemsthathavestrict rulesaboutthequalificationsofinstructorsthatis,mostCanadianschoolsystemsthisproblem hasprovokedanumberofsolutions.Therearenowseveraluniversities,forexample,Lakehead UniversityinThunderBayandtheUniversityofVictoria,whichtrainNativelanguageinstructors whosecredentialssuitatleastoneofthelocalschoolsystems.TheUniversityofQuebecat ChicoutimihasalsohadaprogramtotrainNativetechnolinguiststodoresearchontheirNative languagesandhelpinthetrainingofNativelanguageinstructorsandthepreparationofNative languageteachingmaterials.ProjectedhighschoolNativelanguageprogramsremain unimplementedforthemostpartbecauseregulationsregardingthequalificationsofinstructorsare stifferatthislevel.AconsiderablenumberofNativelanguageinstructorshavereceivednotraining atall.SincethequalificationsofNativelanguageinstructorsarenotfirmlyregulatedandsincethey havenooverallbodytorepresentthem,theyarepaidatanunevenrate(ClarkeandMacKenzie, 1980b;Moore,1981;BurnabyandElson,1982). ItisneverthelessthecasethatNativelanguagesarebeingwidelytaughtasfirstandsecond languagesinschoolsforNativechildren.Thisteachingseems 154

tohavevariousoutcomes.Ifitisbadlytaught,itseemstodiscourageNativechildrenfromany interestintheirancestrallanguage.Forexample,astudyofparents'viewsofCreelanguage programsintheCreeSchoolBoardshowedthatmanyparentswereconcernedthattheiralready CreespeakingchildrenwerebeinghinderedratherthanhelpedintheirNativelanguage developmentbytheCreesubjectofinstructiongivenintheschools.Poorqualityofteachertraining andmaterialsdevelopmentalongwithalackofcoordinatedpolicyfortheprogramwerethemain reasonsgiven(Tanner,1982).Ontheotherhand,Nativelanguagesubjectprogramsoftenserveto giveNativechildrenthefeelingthattheirbackgroundsareimportantandvaluedbytheschool.This writerhasheardfromanumberofNativelanguageinstructorsacrossthecountrythatthe establishmentofaNativelanguageprogramintheschoolhasimprovedchildren'sattitudesto schoolingingeneral.TheNativelanguageinstructoroftenbecomesthegobetweenforthechildren toexpresstheirfearsandfrustrationstotheschoolauthoritiesandtotheirteachers.Thisis particularlythecasewhentheNativelanguageinstructoristheonlyNativememberofthestaffof theschool(MildredMillea,VeronicaWaboose,IdaMcLeod,andothers,personalcommunication). NativeLanguageasaMediumofInstructionPrograms Theliteratureontheeducationofminoritylanguagegroupsincreasinglyindicatesthevalueof mothertonguemediumeducationintheearlygradesasameansofintegratingtheminoritychild intotheschoolsystemandofintroducinginitialliteracythroughthemothertongue(Cummins, 1981).InNorthAmericanNativesituations,thisapproachhasproveneffectiveinsomecases (Modiano,1973;RosierandHolm,1980).Itmustbekeptinmind,however,thatprogramsthatfail arenotlikelytobereportedonintheacademicliterature,orevenstudied.InCanada,thisapproach hasnotbeenwidelyacceptedbyeducators,particularlyintheNativecontext.Suchareactioncan perhapsbejustifiedbythelackofstandardizationofNativeliteracies,bythesmallsizeofthe populationsrepresentedbyeachNativelanguageand/ordialectgroupinrelationtotheexpenseof producingthenecessarymaterials,bythepositionstakenonthesubjectbyNativecommunities,and bytheconservatismofeducationalauthorities. AcaseinpointistheCreeSchoolBoard,oneoftheNativeschoolboardsinQuebec.Inits inauguralstages,theBoardcommissionedareport,basedmainlyontheadviceofacademics,onthe routeitshouldtakeregardinglanguageandmediumofinstructioninitsschools.Theresulting reportstronglyrecommendedtheimplementationoffullbilingualandbiliterateeducation,withthe Creelanguagestillbeingthemediumofinstructionforatleasthalftheclassesbytheendof secondaryschool(CurriculumDevelopmentTeam,1979).Despiteconcertedeffortsonbehalfof theBoardsincethattimetotrainteachersanddevelopmaterials,theBoardhasbeenunabletoget Creemediumeducationpastthe 155

kindergartenlevelthelevelatwhichitwasusedwhenDIANDadministeredtheschoolsbeforethe Boardtookover.Areviewofthepolicywasconductedin1982,anditbecameclearthatparentsand educationauthorityofficialsweredividedoverthequestionofwhethermoreCreelanguage instructionwouldeitherenhancethechildren'sknowledgeofCree(particularlygivenin inadequaciesoftheCreelanguageprogram)orgivethechildrenanadvantageinacquiringliteracy intheofficiallanguages(asomewhatcounterintuitivenotiontotheCrees)(Tanner,1982). AfewotherschooljurisdictionshavetakenstepstoimplementNativemediumeducationfor Nativespeakingchildren.TheotherQuebecNativeschoolboard,theKativikSchoolBoardwhich serveselevenInuitcommunitiesinArcticQuebec,hashadInuktitutmediumeducationgotograde threesincethecreationoftheschoolboardin1978.LiketheCreeSchoolBoardandseveralother Nativeschoolauthoritiesacrossthecountry,ithasarrangedtohavelocalteacherstrainedmostlyon sitewhiletheyworkundersupervisionintheclassroom.Kativikhasbuiltaresearchprograminto thisteachertraining,andtraineesworkwithresearcherstogatherdataonthelearningstylesand languagedevelopmentpatternsofInuitchildren(StairsinBurnaby,1985).Althoughsomeofthe KativikcommunitieshavehadmomentsofdoubtabouttheeffectivenessoftheNativemedium program,itisstillbeingusedinallofthecommunities.TheNorthwestTerritorialgovernmentalso beganInuktitutmediumprogramsuptogradethreein1982inallitsInuitcommunitiesinthe EasternArctic. Earlierinthe1970s,theManitobaDepartmentofEducationranaCreemediumofinstruction programinsomeschoolsforCreespeakingchildren.Theprogramhad90percentCreeinstruction injuniorkindergarten,slidingto10percentbytheendofgradefour(Kirkness,1976).Theproject beganin1971andwasconductedinsixschoolsuntil1976.Itcontinuedinoneschooluntil1982. Documentationontheprojectsince1976doesnotappeartohavebeenmade,soitisnotclearwhy theprogramwasabandoned.PowerfulleadershipbyNativeeducatorswasanimportantfactorinthe initiationofthisproject.Thefactthatsomeofthemainleadershavesincemovedontoother positionsmayhavehadaneffectonthelaterlifeoftheprogram. SchoolsforNativespeakingchildrenquitecommonlyteachseveralsubjectsthroughthemediumof theNativelanguage.Religion,Nativecrafts,Nativestudies,andoccasionallyartorphysical educationaretaughtintheNativelanguageonanadhocbasisdependingonthepersonnelavailable andtheattitudesofthecommunity.KindergartenisoftentaughtintheNativelanguage,and bilingualteachersorclassroomassistantsinhighergradesusetheNativelanguageastheyfeelitto beappropriate(Burnaby,1980;Tanner,1982). Asmentionedabove,FrenchisnowbeingtaughtextensivelytoAnglophonechildreninCanadaat theelementaryschoollevel.AverypopularprogramiscalledFrenchimmersioninwhich AnglophonechildrenaretaughtalmostentirelythroughthemediumofFrencheitherfromthe kindergartenleveluporstartinginahighergrade.Thisprogramhasbeenagreatsuccessbothin termsofits 156

results(SwainandLapkin,1983)andofpublicenthusiasmforit.SeveralNativecommunitieshave takenaleaffromthatbookandhaveattemptedNativelanguageimmersionprogramsforEnglish speakingNativechildren.ItisfairlycommoninEnglishspeakingNativecommunitiesforthe Nativelanguagetobetaughtinpreschoolprograms.Intheearly1970s,anOjibweimmersion programthatwastobeginwithanallOjibwemediumofinstructioninkindergartenandtransfer mainlytoEnglishbygradefivewasinitiatedinWestBay,Ontario(Wasacase,n.d.).Theprogram continuedforseveralyears,butwhenparentsappearedtobehesitantaboutitandfearedthattheir childrenwouldsufferacademically,itwasdropped.However,thecommunityisnowattemptingto mounttheprogramagain.OntheCaughnawagareservejustoutsideofMontreal,aMohawk immersionprogramhasrecentlybeenputinplaceundertheleadershipofanenergeticelementary schoolteacher,SisterDorothyLazore.Thisprogramisprojectedtocoverkindergartentograde three.SisterDorothyhasmobilizedcommunityresourcestoproducethenecessarycurriculumand materials,andshehastaughtagooddealoftheprogramherself.OtherNativelanguageimmersion programsareinMaria,Quebec,andChapelIsland,NovaScotia. SUMMARY ThetaskofcreatingarationalpolicyfortheprovisionoflanguagetraininginschoolingforNative childreninCanadaiscomplicatedbythediversityofconditionsforeveryfactorinvolved.Thereare overfiftyNativelanguagesspokeninCanadasubsumedunderelevenlanguagefamilies.Morethan halfofCanada'sNativepeoplenowspeakoneofthetwoofficiallanguages(EnglishandFrench)as theirmothertongue.Themajority,butnotall,ofNativepeopleinthecountryaredistinguished legallyfromothercitizensandareentitledtoservicesprovidedbythefederalgovernment specificallyforthem.Sinceeducationisonesuchservice,afederaleducationaljurisdictionmustbe addedtothelistofprovincialandterritorialjurisdictionstobeconsideredinthecreationofNative educationalpolicy.OnefurtherfactoristhedistributionoftheNativepopulationacrossthe countrysomecommunitiesingreatisolationandothersinclosecontactwithnonNativegroupsin ruralorurbanareas. ApproachestotheroleofNativelanguagesineducationhavefluctuatedthroughoutthehistoryof formaleducationforNativestudents.IntheperiodinwhichmostNativestudentsspokeaNative languageastheirmothertongue(uptoaboutWorldWarII),thereweretworivalapproaches:(1) Nativestudentsweretaughtthroughthemediumoftheirmothertongueinordertogetthecontent acrossandwereslowlyintroducedtoEnglishorFrench;and(2)thestudents'exposuretoEnglishor Frenchwasmaximizedfromthebeginningofschooling,andstudentswereoftenprohibitedfrom speakingtheirNativelanguageeitherinsideoroutsideofschool.Thesecondapproachwasthemost commonduringthelatterpartoftheperiodinquestion. SinceWorldWarII,therehasbeenaslowrecognitionofavarietyofroles 157

whichtheNativelanguagesmightplayinNativeschooling.Anumberofmodelshavebeen proposed,andsomeofthesehavebeenimplementedwithvaryingdegreesofsuccessandstaying power.Theoldest,mostpersistent,andmostuniversaloftheseisNativelanguageassubjectof instructionforNativeorofficiallanguagespeakingchildren.TheuseofNativelanguagesasthe mediumofinstructionintheearlyyearsoftransitionprogramsforNativespeakingchildrenorof secondlanguageimmersionprogramsforEnglishspeakingNativechildrenhasonlyemergedin thepastdecadeorso.Theearliestofthesewerediscontinued,butothershavebeeninitiated whicharestillinoperation.AlsosinceWorldWarII,therehasbeenaslowgrowthintheuseof EnglishandFrenchasasecondlanguageteachingmethodinclassesforNativespeaking children.Inthepastfiveyearsorso,interesthasarisenintheuseofmethodsforteaching standardEnglishasaseconddialectwithsomeEnglishmothertongueNativechildren. ProgrammodelsavailableinschoolsforNativeorofficiallanguagespeakingNativestudents varyfromcommunitytocommunityandfromschooltoschool.Oneimportantfactorinthe choiceofprogramiscommunitywill.Asecondisthepoliticalwilloftheschoolauthority.In someschooljurisdictions,Nativepeoplehavealloratleastsomeofthedecisionmakingpower. However,suchjurisdictionsarenotnecessarilythosewiththegreatestproportionofNative languageintheschoolprogram.Otherfactorsincludegeographicallyrelatedconditionssuchas theamountofisolationofthecommunityortheproportionofNativechildrentoothersinone schoolorschoolsystem.Finally,somefactorsarerelatedtothehumanandmaterialresources availabletosupportinnovativeprograms,suchasfacilitiestoprintmaterialsinNativelanguages whichusespecialcharactersorprogramstotrainandsupportNativelanguageteachersandother specialists. Ifthereisa"best"modelfortheintegrationofNativelanguagesintoschoolingforNative students,orevenoneforNativespeakingandanotherforofficiallanguagespeakingstudents, thereisnoconsensusinCanadaonit.Changingcommunityclimatesandwiderpolitical opinionsabouttheroleofNativelanguagesinNativesociety,alongwithchangesinthepart NativepeopleplayindecisionmakingaboutNativeschooling,haveresultedinavarietyof innovationsinlanguageprograms.Therichdiversityoffactorsthatmightinfluencethechoice andsuccessofschoolprogramshasproducedarangeofmodelsacrossthecountry.Theonly widelyavailablemeasureofthegeneralsuccessofsuchprogramsistheirlongevity.Althoughwe canhavesomeconfidenceinthevalueofsomeofthelongestlivedandwidelyspreadprograms (suchastheNativelanguageasasubjectofinstructionprograms),itiscrucialthatsupportand encouragementcontinuefornewerexperimentsforexample,theNativelanguageimmersion programsforofficiallanguagespeakingNativestudents.Throughtheseinnovationsnewmodels canbedevelopedandschoolingforNativestudentscanbeadjustedtochangingconditions. 158

BIBLIOGRAPHY BowdAlanD.1977."TenYearsAftertheHawthornReport:ChangingPsychological ImplicationsfortheEducationofCanadianNativePeoples."CanadianPsychology18,2:33245. BrooksI.R.1978."TeachingNativeChildren:LessonsfromCognitivePsychology."Journalof EducationalThought12,1:5667. BurnabyBarbaraJ.1980.LanguagesandTheirRolesinEducatingNativeChildren.Toronto: OISEPress. .1982.LanguageinEducationAmongCanadianNativePeoples.Toronto:OISEPress. .1984.AboriginalLanguagesinOntario.Toronto:OntarioMinistryofEducation. .1985.PromotingNativeWritingSystemsinCanada.Toronto:OISEPress. BurnabyB.,andR.Beaujot.TheUseofAboriginalLanguagesinCanada:AnAnalysisof1981 CensusData.Ottawa:DepartmentoftheSecretaryofStateandSupplyandServicesCanada. BurnabyB.,andN.Elson.1982.LanguageDevelopmentinNativeEducation.Toronto:TESL Canada. BurnabyB.,J.Nichols,andK.Toohey.1980.NorthernNativeLanguagesProject:FinalReport. Toronto:OntarioRegionalOfficeoftheDepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthern Development,OntarioMinistryofEducation,WawtayCommunicationsSociety,Northern NishnawbeEducationCouncil,andOjibwayCreeCulturalCentre.(Mimeo.) Canada.DepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthernDevelopment.1980.IndianConditions:A Survey.Ottawa:DepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthernDevelopment. Canada.StandingCommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsonIndianAffairs.1969.Statementof theGovernmentofCanadaonIndianPolicy.FirstSessionofthe28thParliament.Ottawa:The Queen'sPrinter. Canada.StatisticsCanada.198284.CensusofCanada1981.Ottawa:StatisticsCanada. Canada.StatisticsCanada.1984.Canada'sNativePeople.Ottawa:SupplyandServicesCanada. Canada.Statutes.196869.TheOfficialLanguagesAct.C.54. Canada.Statutes.1977.JamesBayandNorthernQuebecNativeClaimsSettlementAct. ClarkeS.,andM.MacKenzie.1980a."EducationintheMotherTongue:TokenismVersus CulturalAutonomyinCanadianIndianSchools."CanadianJournalofAnthropology1,2:205 .1980b."IndianTeacherTrainingPrograms:AnOverviewandEvaluation."InPapersofthe EleventhAlgonquianConference,ed.Wm.Cowan.Ottawa:CarletonUniversity.

Cummins.J.1981.BilingualismandMinorityLanguageChildren.Toronto:OISEPress. CurriculumDevelopmentTeam.TheCouncilofCommissioners.CreeSchoolBoard(1979). PositionPaperonBilingualEducation:CreeasaLanguageofInstruction.ValD'Or,Quebec: CreeSchoolBoard.(Mimeo.) FosterM.K.1982."Canada'sIndigenousLanguages:PresentandFuture."LanguageandSociety 7:716. 159

HawthornH.B.,ed.1967.ASurveyofContemporaryIndiansofCanada:EconomicPoliticaland EducationalNeedsandPolicies.Vol.2.Ottawa:IndianAffairsBranch. HowardP.G.1983."HistoryoftheUseofDeneLanguagesinEducationintheNorthwest Territories."CanadianJournalofNativeEducation10,2:118. IndianChiefsofAlberta.1970.CitizensPlus.Edmonton:IndianAssociationofAlberta. KirknessV.1976.ManitobaNativeBilingualProgram:AHandbook.Ottawa:DepartmentofIndian AffairsandNorthernDevelopment. LanphierM.C.,L.Lam,J.Clodman,andA.Somogyi.1980.EthnicityandOccupationalRanking: SocioDemographicandRegionalPerspectives.Toronto:YorkUniversity,EthnicResearch ModianoN.1973.IndianEducationintheChiapasHighlands.NewYork:Holt,Rinehartand Winston. MooreA.J.1981.NativeTeacherEducation:ASurveyofNativeIndianandInuitTeacher EducationProjectsinCanada.Vancouver:CanadianIndianTeacherEducationProjects(CITEP) Conference. NationalIndianBrotherhood.1972.IndianControlofIndianEducation.Ottawa:NationalIndian Brotherhood. Ontario.MinistryofEducation.1975.PeopleofNativeAncestry:AResourceGuideforthePrimary andJuniorDivisions.Toronto:TheQueen'sPrinter. PattersonE.P.,II.1972.TheCanadianIndian:AHistorySince1500.DonMills,Ontario:Collier MacmillanCanadaLtd. PhilipsS.1975."LiteracyasaModeofCommunicationontheWarmSpringsReservation."In UNESCO,FoundationsofLanguageDevelopment:AMultidisciplinaryApproach.NewYork: AcademicPress. Quebec.NationalAssembly.1976.TheJamesBayandNorthernQuebecAgreement.Quebec: EditeurOfficielduQuebec. Quebec.NationalAssembly.1977.CharteroftheFrenchLanguage(Bill101).SecondSessionof the31stLegislature. RichardsonB.1975.StrangersDevourtheLand:TheCreeHuntersoftheJamesBayAreaVersus PremierBourassaandtheJamesBayDevelopmentCorporation.Montreal:AlfredKnopf. RosierP.,andW.Holm.1980.TheRockPointExperience:ALongitudinalStudyofaNavajoSchool Program.Washington,D.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics. ShrofelS.M.1985."StudyingNativeIndianEnglish:ProblemsinMethodology."Paperpresentedat thejointconferencesoftheCanadianEthnologySociety(12thAnnual),theAmericanEthnological Society,theCanadianAssociationforMedicalAnthropology,andtheSocietyforApplied AnthropologyinCanada,Toronto,May912,1985. SturtevantW.C.,ed.1978.HandbookofNorthAmericanIndians.Washington,D.C.:Smithsonian Institution. SwainM.,andS.Lapkin.1983.FrenchImmersion:TheTrialBalloonThatFlew.Toronto:OISE Press. TannerA.1982.EstablishingaNativeLanguageEducationPolicy:AStudyBasedontheViewsof CreeParentsintheJamesBayRegionofQuebec.ValD'Or,Quebec:CreeSchoolBoard.(Mimeo.) TooheyK.1982."NorthernNativeCanadianSecondLanguageEducation:ACaseStudyofFort

Albany,Ontario."Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofToronto. 160

.1985."EducationalImpactofDialectinEnglishAmongCanadianNativeChildren."Paper presentedatthejointconferencesoftheCanadianEthnologySociety(12thAnnual),theAmerican EthnologicalSociety,theCanadianAssociationforMedicalAnthropology,andtheSocietyfor AppliedAnthropologyinCanada,Toronto,May912,1985. TschanzL.1980.NativeLanguagesandGovernmentPolicy:AnHistoricalExamination.London, Ontario:CentreforResearchandTeachingofCanadianNativeLanguages,UniversityofWestern Ontario. WasacaseI.n.d.Bilingual"Immersion"NativeLanguageOjibwePilotProject,WestBay,Ontario. Ottawa:DepartmentofIndianAffairsandNorthernDevelopment. 161

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 162

THECANADIANSECONDLANGUAGE IMMERSIONPROGRAM FredGenesee Canadaisarelativelyyoungnation,foundedin1867,withapopulationofapproximately25million citizenswhoinhabitaterritorythatissecondinsizeonlytotheUSSR.Thecountryhasafederal formofgovernmentconsistingoftenprovinciallegislatures,twoterritoriallegislatures,andone nationalparliamentlocatedinOttawa.Politicalpowerishighlydecentralized,withtheprovincial governmentholdingconsiderablelegislativeandpoliticalpowerincertainjurisdictions,including, forexample,education,healthcare,andmunicipalaffairs,andthefederalgovernmentholding powersinotherjurisdictions. TherearethreefoundinggroupsNativepeoples(includingtheInuitorEskimosandIndians),the French,andtheEnglish.Thesegroupsdiffergreatlywithrespecttotheirpopulationsize, geographicaldistribution,andsocialandeconomicpower.ItisnotcertainwhentheNativepeople arrivedinNorthAmerica,althoughitwasprobablyduringprehistorictimesandpossiblyduringthe lastGreatIceAge.TheInuithavetraditionallyinhabitedthenorthernregions,andtheIndiansthe moresouthernpartsofthecountry.Sinceconfederationin1867,theNativepeopleshavecomprised asmallanddiminishingpercentageofthetotalCanadianpopulation(seeTable8.1,andChapter7 byBarnaby,thisvolume).Theyhavenoseparate,electedpoliticalrepresentation;theyvotein electionsinthesamewayasotherCanadiancitizens.Mattersofspecialrelevancetothemaredealt withbytheFederalDepartmentofIndianandNorthernAffairs. CanadiansofBritishandFrenchoriginconstitutebyfarthelargestethnicgroupsinCanada,with thoseofBritishoriginbeingmorenumerous(40percent)thanthoseofFrenchorigin(27percent). FrenchandEnglishCanadiansareunequallydistributedacrossthecountry.Thisismostnotablein thecaseofFrenchCanadianswhoresidemainlyinQuebec,northernNewBrunswick,theeastern borderofOntario,andsouthernManitoba.EnglishCanadiansconstitute 163

Table8.1 EthnicOriginoftheCanadianPopulation,1901to1971 Origin British French IndianandEskimo German Italian Dutch Polish Scandinavian Ukrainian Other Total 1901 57.0% 30.7 2.4 5.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 2.5 100.0 1921 55.4% 27.9 1.3 3.4 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.9 1.2 6.2 100.0 1941 49.7% 30.3 1.1 4.0 1.0 1.9 1.5 2.1 2.7 5.7 100.0 1961 43.8% 30.4 1.2 5.8 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.6 7.4 100.0 1971 44.6% 28.7 1.3 6.1 3.4 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.2 8.6 100.0

1Source:ReportoftheRoyalCommissiononBilingualismandBiculturalism,

BookIV,p.248. alargepercentageofthepopulationinallregionsofthecountrywiththeoneexceptionof Quebecwheretheymakeuponly17to20percentofthepopulation.ItisclearfromTable8.1 thatevenCanadiansofBritishorFrenchoriginareslowlydiminishinginnumericalimportance asaresultofariseinthenumberofnonEnglish,nonFrenchimmigrants.Itisestimatedthat therearesomeseventyeightdifferentculturalgroupsinCanada.Theyconstituteapproximately 33percentofthetotalpopulation. ThehistoricalandsocialsignificanceofFrenchandEnglishalongwiththegrowingimportance andrecognitionofethnicdiversityinCanadaaretwoofthemostsalientfeaturesofCanadian culture.Indeed,incontrasttothenotionofacultural"meltingpot"intheUnitedStates,Canada hasbeencharacterizedasan"ethnicmosaic."InrecognitionofthesecharacteristicsofCanadian society,thefederalgovernmenthasadoptedofficialpoliciesofbilingualismand multiculturalism.AccordingtotheOfficialLanguagesAct,passedin1969: TheEnglishandFrenchlanguagesaretheofficiallanguagesofCanadaforall purposesoftheParliamentandGovernmentofCanada,andpossessandenjoy equalityofstatus 164

andequalrightsandprivilegesastotheiruseinalltheinstitutionsoftheParliament andGovernmentofCanada(section2). ThismeansthatCanadianshaveaccesstoservicesprovidedbythefederalParliamentor governmentinEnglishorinFrenchanywhereinCanada.TheActdoesnotrequirethatall Canadiansbebilingual,butratheronlythatgovernmentemployeesdispensingfederal governmentservicesarerequiredtobebilingual.Thistypeofbilingualismisreferredtoas institutionalbilingualism. Themulticulturalismpolicyadoptedin1971isdesigned: toencourageandassistwithintheframeworkofCanada'sofficiallanguagespolicy andinthespiritofexistinghumanrightscodes,thefullrealizationofthe multiculturalnatureofCanadiansocietythroughprogramswhichpromotethe preservationandsharingofethnoculturalheritagesandwhichfacilitatemutual appreciationandunderstandingamongallCanadians. Partofthemulticulturalismprogramisconcernedwiththemaintenanceanddevelopmentof heritagelanguages,includinglanguagesotherthanFrench,English,orNativepeoples' languages.Thisisarelativelyrecentaspectofmulticulturalism,andtodaterelativelylittlehas beenaccomplished(forreviewsofthisworkseeCummins,1983;andO'Bryan,Reitz,and Kuplowska,1976). TheremainderofthischapterwillfocusonFrenchEnglishbilingualismandparticularlyon bilingualeducationprogramsorientedtowardteachingEnglishspeakingchildrenFrench. Referencewillalsobemadetobilingualprogramsthatteachnonofficiallanguages,suchas HebrewandUkrainian,toEnglishspeakingchildren.Ingeneral,then,thefocuswillbeon bilingualeducationformajorityEnglishlanguagechildren.ThereaderisreferredtoChapter7in thisvolumeforareviewofeducationalprogramsdesignedforInuitandIndianchildren. ABRIEFSOCIOLINGUISTICHISTORYOFENGLISHFRENCHRELATIONS LikemanypartsoftheNewWorld,CanadawassettledandgovernedbydifferentEuropean nationsduringitsearlydevelopment.ThefirstcolonizationofCanadawasundertakenbythe FrenchbeginningwithJacquesCartier'slandinginCanadain1534.Frenchcontrolgavewayto Britishcontrolin1763whentheBritishdefeatedtheFrenchattheBattleofthePlainsof AbrahamnearQuebecCity(Cook,Saywell,andRicker,1977).FrenchCanadianculturewas deeplyrootedinNorthAmericaatthetimeoftheBritishconquest.Thus,itresistedthe assimilationisteffectsofBritishlegislationandimmigrationpolicywhichwouldhaveerodedthe vitalityofalessentrenchedethnolinguisticgroup. TheBritishNorthAmericaActof1867legallyconstitutedtheCanadianconfederation,whichat thetimeconsistedofOntario,Quebec,NewBrunswick,andNovaScotia.Analogoustothe AmericanDeclarationofIndependence,the 165

BNAAct,asitisusuallyreferredto,affirmedCanada'slinguisticdualityonlyinQuebec,where theuseofboththeFrenchandEnglishlanguageswasrequiredintheParliamentandCourtsof theprovince.Itwasnotuntil1969,withthepassageoftheOfficialLanguagesAct,asdescribed earlier,thatbothlanguageswereactuallyaccordedstatusasofficiallanguagesnationwide. AccordingtoCanadianbilingualismpolicy,federalgovernmentservicesthroughoutthecountry mustbemadeavailableinbothFrenchandEnglish.Thispolicydoesnotapplytoservices providedbyCanada'stenprovincialgovernmentsorthetwoterritorialgovernmentsintheYukon andtheNorthwestTerritories.Attheprovinciallevel,onlyoneprovince,NewBrunswick,also recognizesFrenchandEnglishasofficiallanguages.Theremainingnineprovincesare monolingual,witheightrecognizingEnglishandone,theProvinceofQuebec,recognizing Frenchastheofficiallanguage.DespitethelackofofficialstatusforbothEnglishandFrenchin mostoftheprovinces,certainprovincialgovernmentservicesarenowavailableinboth languagesinmostprovinces.Thereisanincreasingmoveinthisdirection.Theofficiallanguage policiesoftheprovincialgovernmentstendtoreflecttheirrespectiveconstituencies.Thus,the oneofficiallybilingualprovince,NewBrunswick,hasasizablepercentageofbothFrench speakingandEnglishspeakingresidents;Quebec,whichrecognizesFrenchastheonlyofficial language,isinhabitedpredominantlybyFrenchspeakingresidents;andtheremainingeight provinces,whichallrecognizeEnglishastheofficialprovinciallanguage,havepredominantly Englishspeakingresidents. NotwithstandingregionaldifferencesintheprevalenceofEnglishandFrench,ingeneralthe EnglishandFrenchlanguagesareimportantfeaturesofCanadianlife.Consequently,competence inbothEnglishandFrenchisanimportantmeansofcommunicationinCanadianpolitical, cultural,andeconomicaffairs,andbilingualcompetenceisoftenassociatedwithtangibleand/or intangiblerewards.TherewardvalueassociatedwithEnglishFrenchbilingualismisenhanced bytheinternationalstatusandutilityofEnglishandFrench,beitindiplomatic,economic,or culturalspheres.NotwithstandingthehistoricalimportanceoftheFrenchandEnglishculturesin theearlydevelopmentofCanada,thefederalgovernmentrecognizesneitherasofficialcultures. Asalreadynoted,Canadahasadoptedanofficialpolicyofmulticulturalismwhichrecognizes thelegitimacyandvalueofallculturesrepresentedamongitscitizenry. THEQUIETREVOLUTION Despiteitshistoricalimportanceduringtheearlycolonizationandsubsequentdevelopmentof Canada;despiteitscontemporarystatusasanofficialnationallanguage;despiteitsdemographic significanceasthenativelanguageofapproximately25percentoftheCanadianpopulation;and despiteevenitsinternationalstatusasamajorworldlanguage,Frenchhasuntilrecentlybeenthe 1Thishasbeentruetoalargeextentevenin disadvantagedpartnerinCanadianconfederation. theProvinceofQuebecwherethevastmajorityofthepopulation 166

speakFrenchasanativelanguage(viz.,some80percentinatotalpopulationof6million); indeed,manyQuebecersspeakonlyFrench.EvidenceoftheinferiorstatusofFrenchcanbe foundinatleastthreeareas:(1)legislation,(2)patternsoflanguageuse,and(3)language attitudes. LegislationandtheFrenchLanguage Ashasalreadybeennoted,FrenchisrecognizedasanofficiallanguagebyonlytwoofCanada's tenprovinces(namely,QuebecandNewBrunswick)andbyneitherterritorialgovernment. Whiletheeight"Englishprovinces"donotpresentlyrecognizeFrenchasanofficialprovincial language,theydonotforbiditsuse.Thelegislativepicturewasnotalwayssotolerant.Theuseof French,particularlyinpublicschools,hasbeenforbiddenbylawincertainprovincesatcertain periodsduringtheyearssinceconfederation.Forexample,in1890thegovernmentofthe ProvinceofManitobarevokedanearlierlawrequiringtheuseofFrenchintheprovincial Parliamentandpermittingitsuseinpublicschools.StudentscaughtusingFrenchinschoolby theauthoritiescouldbephysicallypunished.The1890lawhassincebeenrepealed,andpolitical effortsarebeingmadetorestoreFrenchtoitsoriginalstatus.AccordingtothenewCanadian CharterofRightsandFreedoms(1982),publiceducationwillbeavailableinallprovincesin bothofficiallanguages,wherenumberswarrant. PatternsofLanguageUse WidespreaddailyuseofFrench,exceptincommunicationwithofficialfederalgovernment agencies,islimitedtotheprovincesofQuebecandNewBrunswickandtootherspecificregions withsizableFrenchspeakingcommunities(e.g.,theOntarioQuebecborder,NorthernAlberta, andpartsofOntario).Evenintheseareas,however,EnglishoftenpredominatesoverFrenchas thelinguafranca.Thisisparticularlytrueinpublicsettingsandinbusinessandcommerce.Inan extensivestudyofthelanguageofworkinQuebecin1972,J.D.Gendronnotesthat IntheprovinceofQuebecitself,Frenchremainsbasicallyamarginallanguage,since nonFrenchspeakingpersonshavelittleneedofitandmanyFrenchspeakingpeople useEnglishasmuchasandsometimesmorethantheirmothertongueforimportant work.ThisapplieseventhoughQuebec'sFrenchspeakingpeopleconstituteavast majoritybothinthelaborforceandintheoverallpopulation(p.108). Thismeansthat"ininterrelationshipsinmixedconversationgroups,Englishspeakingpersons concedemuchlesstoFrenchthandoFrenchspeakingpersonstoEnglish"(p.93).Thus,"the burdenofbilingualismisunequallydistributedbetweenFrenchandEnglishspeakingpeople, bothasregardsthedegreeofcompetenceintheotherlanguageandthelanguagedemandsona workerduringthecourseofhiscareer"(p.94). 167

LanguageAttitudes Perhapsnoothersinglepieceofevidenceatteststothedisadvantagedorinferiorstatusthatthe FrenchlanguagehashadrelativetotheEnglishlanguagethantheresultsofastudycarriedout byLambert,Hodgson,Gardner,andFillenbaum(1960).Inwhathasbecomeaclassicstudyin thesocialpsychologyoflanguage,LambertandhiscolleaguesaskedgroupsofEnglishand FrenchCanadiansinMontrealtolistentoandgivetheirimpressionsofpeoplespeakingeither FrenchorEnglish.Unknowntothelisteners,theywereactuallyhearingthesameperfectly bilingualindividualsonseparateoccasions,sometimesspeakingFrenchandsometimesEnglish. Analysesofthelistener'sreactionstothespeakersindicatedthattheyweremuchmorefavorable towardtheEnglish"guises"thantowardtheFrench"guises."Inotherwords,thesamespeakers wereperceivedsignificantlydifferentlywhenheardusingeachoftheirtwolanguagesitisasif theyweretwodifferentpeople.Furthermore,itwasfoundthatnotonlydidEnglishCanadians formmorefavorableimpressionsoftheEnglishguisesthantheFrenchguises,evidenceofin groupfavoritism,butsodidFrenchCanadians.Thatis,eventheFrenchCanadiansubjects perceivedthespeakersmorefavorablywhentheyspokeinEnglishthanwhentheyspokein French,eventhoughthismeantdenigratingmembersoftheirownethnolinguisticgroup. Subsequentresearchhassubstantiatedthesefindings(d'AnglejanandTucker,1973)andfurther indicatesthatthetendencyforFrenchCanadianstodenigratemembersoftheirowngroupisnot manifestbychildrenbeforetheageoftwelvebutemergesaroundadolescence(Anisfeldand Lambert,1964)andthusappearstobeasociallylearnedphenomenon(seeDay,1982,fora recentreviewofsimilarresearch).Lamberthasinterpretedtheseresultstomeanthatlanguage canactasanimportantsymbolofethnolinguisticgroupmembership,andthatmembersofethnic minoritygroupsmayinternalizethenegativestereotypesoftheirgroupthatmembersofthe majoritygroupoftenhave. Discontentovertheselinguisticandculturalinequitieshadbeendevelopingforsometime, particularlyinQuebec.EarlyattemptsbytheFrenchspeakingcommunitytoarriveatamore equitablerelationshipwiththeEnglishcommunitythroughnegotiationhadbeenlargely unsuccessful.Repeatedlyfacedwithanapparentlackofresponsivenessonthepartofthe Englishcommunitytotheirconcerns,FrenchspeakingQuebecersbegantomakevocaland publicdemandsforchange.Thisculminatedintheearly1960swithconcertedpolitical,social, and,insomecases,militantactionstobringaboutchange.Therewere,forexample,mass demonstrationsagainstpublicinstitutionsthatwouldorcouldnotcommunicatewithFrench speakingQuebecersinFrench.Thesocialunrestmanifestedduringthisperiodhascometobe calledtheQuietRevolution. Duringthelasttwentyyears,someQuebecpoliticianshavecalledforseparationfromtherestof Canada.ApoliticalpartywhoseavowedintentionsaretoseekQuebec'sseparationfromCanada waselectedastheprovincialgovernmentin1976.Oneofthemostimportantpiecesoflegislation whichthisgov 168

ernmentpassedaftertakingofficewasalawdeclaringFrenchtheonlyofficiallanguageofthe province.ThislawthenassuresthelinguisticrightsofthemajorityFrenchspeakingcitizensof Quebec.Someanalystsbelievethata1978referendumbythissamegovernmentseekingsupportfor Quebec'sseparationfromCanadafailedbecauseofthereassurancethatthislawgavetheFrench populationthattheirlanguagewouldberespectedandsafeguarded. THEST.LAMBERTEXPERIMENT:ACOMMUNITYEXPERIMENTINSOCIAL CHANGE AtthesametimethattheFrenchcommunityinQuebecwasexpressingdissatisfactionwith inequitiesinthelanguagesituation,someEnglishspeakingQuebecersbegantogrowmore concernedaboutEnglishFrenchrelations.Morespecificallytherewasanemergingawarenessin theEnglishcommunity,precipitatedbyeventsoftheQuietRevolution,thatFrenchwasbecoming animportantlanguageofcommunicationinmostspheresoflifeinQuebecand,concomitantly,that Englishalonewouldnolongerassuresocialandeconomicsuccessintheprovince.Thecoexistence ofFrenchandEnglishCanadianshasbeencharacterizedbyCanadiannovelistHughMacLennan (1945)astwosolitudes,anaptmetaphorinthisandmanyothercommunitiesinhabitedbypeopleof differentlinguisticandculturalbackgrounds.FacedwiththeevolvingimportanceofFrenchasthe mainworkinglanguageofQuebecandwithanincreasingdissatisfactionwiththelinguisticbarriers thatseparatedEnglishandFrenchCanadians,aconcernedgroupofEnglishspeakingparentsinthe smallsuburbancommunityofSt.Lambert,outsideofMontreal,begantomeetinformallyinthe early1960stodiscussthesituation(LambertandTucker,1972). TheyfeltthattheirincompetenceinFrenchcontributedto,andindeedwasattributableinpartto, thetwosolitudesthateffectivelypreventedthemfromlearningFrenchinformallyfromtheirFrench speakingneighbors.TheyfeltthattheirinabilitytocommunicateinFrenchwasalsoattributableto inadequatemethodsofsecondlanguageinstructioninEnglishschools.Atthattime,Frenchwas taughtforrelativelyshortperiodseachday(twentytothirtyminutes)byteacherswhowereusually nativeEnglishspeakerswithcompetenceinFrenchasasecondlanguagethatvariedfromexcellent topoor.Therewasanemphasisonteachingvocabularyandgrammarrulesandonusingpattern practicedrillsbasedonthenpopularaudiolingualtechniques.Thisapproachwascommontomany secondlanguageprogramsthroughoutNorthAmericawhichretainsomeofthesamecharacteristics eventothisday.UnlikesecondlanguageinstructioninotherpartsofNorthAmerica,however, secondlanguageinstructioninQuebecbeganinelementaryschoolandcontinuedsystematically untiltheendofsecondaryschool.Thisisstilltrue,andithasbecomecustomarytovaryingdegrees intheotherCanadianprovinces. Despitetwelveyearsofsecondlanguageinstruction,however,studentsgraduatingfromthepublic schoolsofQuebecwereinadequatelypreparedtodeal 169

withthedemandsofusingasecondlanguageindiversereallifesituations.Asoneofthegroup oftwelveSt.Lambertparentswhospearheadedinterestinalternativemethodsofsecond languageinstructionpointedout: ChildrenweregraduatingfromEnglishProtestantschoolsinthisprovincewithlittle moreknowledgeofFrenchthantheirparentshadhad,despiteclaimsthatthe programshadbeenconsiderablyimprovedovertheyears.Theirknowledgewasnot perceptiblysuperiortothatofgraduatesfromtheEnglishprovincesofCanadaand wasnotsufficienttoenablethestudentstocommunicatewiththeirFrenchCanadian neighbors.Theparentsfelttheirchildrenwerebeingshortchangedandshouldhave theopportunitytobecome'bilingual'withintheschoolsystem,sinceitwasso difficulttoachievethisskilloutsideofschool(MelikoffinLambertandTucker, 1972:220). MostoftheSt.Lambertparentswhoparticipatedinthesediscussionscouldattesttothefailure ofsecondlanguageinstruction,usingtheirownexperiencesasevidence. Intheirsearchforbettermethodsofsecondlanguageinstructionfortheirchildren,theSt. LambertBilingualSchoolStudyGroup,astheycametocallthemselves,soughttheassistance andadviceofexpertswithintheircommunity.Inparticular,theyconsultedwithDr.WallaceE. LambertofthePsychologyDepartment,McGillUniversity,whohadconductedresearchon socialpsychologicalandcognitiveaspectsofbilingualism,andwithDr.WilderPenfieldofthe MontrealNeurologicalInstitute,McGill,whohadconductedresearchonbrainmechanisms underlyinglanguagefunctions.Theinvolvementofthesetwoscholarswasindeedfortunate becausenotonlydidtheygivetheiroverallsupporttotheparents'project,buttheirprofessional adviceshapedthenewprograminsomeimportantways. TheeffortsoftheSt.Lambertgroupfinallysucceeded,withtheschooldistrictagreeingtosetup anexperimentalkindergartenimmersionclassinSeptember1965,sometwoyearsaftertheirfirst meetings.Inherdescriptionofeventsleadingupto1965,OlgaMelikoffnotesthatschool officialsdidnotaccepttheexperimentalclassbecauseofanyconvictionthatitwasaworthwhile educationalexperiment,butratherbecausepublicpressureonthemwastoogreattoignore.She characterizestheofficialschooldistrictattitudeasfollows:"Youaskedforit,ifitdoesn'twork, it'snotourfault"(p.227)."AtnotimewouldtheBoardundertaketoaccepttheexperimentfor morethanayearatatime"(p.233).Despitealackofofficialsupportfromtheschool authorities,parentsweresurprisinglyenthusiasticregistrationfortheexperimentalkindergarten class"openedonespringdayat1p.m.,andby1:05p.m.thequotaof26childrenwasreached" (p.226). Theprocessofcommunityinvolvementthathasjustbeendescribedhasbeenrepeatedmany timessincethefirstimmersionclasswasopenedinSt.Lambertin1965.Theintroductionof FrenchimmersionprogramsinmostschooldistrictselsewhereinQuebecandCanadahasbeen instigatedandpromotedbylocal 170

communitygroups,alongwiththeassistanceofindividualschooldistrictofficialsand researchers.Officialsupporthascustomarilybeenlukewarmattheoutset.Parentshave continuedtoplayanimportantroleintheevolutionofimmersionprograms,asevidencedbythe establishmentofCanadianParentsforFrench,avoluntary,nonprofitassociationofEnglish speakingparentswhoseektoimprovethequalityofsecondlanguageinstructioninpublic schoolsacrossCanada.Itwasintheeducationalsystem,andinFrenchimmersioninparticular, thattheSt.Lambertparentssoughtaresponsetoimportantsociolinguisticchangesthatwere takingplacearoundthem.Moreover,itwasthrougheducationalinnovationthattheyalsosought tobringaboutsocialchangewithintheirowncommunities.ImprovedFrenchsecondlanguage learningwasnotintendedtobethesolegoalofimmersion.Rather,itwasintendedtobean intermediategoalleadingtoimprovedrelationshipsbetweenEnglishandFrenchQuebecersand thusultimatelytoabreakingdownofthetwosolitudesthathadbecomeunacceptable. ST.LAMBERT:ANEXPERIMENTINBILINGUALEDUCATION TheSt.LambertFrenchimmersionprogramthatwasinauguratedinSeptember1965was designedtoachievethefollowingprimarygoals: 1. Toprovidetheparticipatingchildrenwithfunctionalcompetenceinbothwrittenandspoken aspectsofFrench. 2. TopromoteandmaintainnormallevelsofEnglishlanguagedevelopment. 3. Toensureachievementinacademicsubjectscommensuratewiththestudents'abilityand gradelevel. 4. ToinstillinthestudentsanunderstandingandappreciationofFrenchCanadians,their languageandculture,withoutdetractinginanywayfromthestudents'identitywithand appreciationforEnglishCanadianculture.Thesegoalsaresharedbymostimmersion programsacrossCanadainessentiallythesameform. TheprograminSt.Lambertwasanearlytotalimmersionprogram.Thatis,allcurriculum instruction,beginninginkindergarten(fiveyearsofage)andcontinuingthroughtheprimary grades,wastaughtthroughFrench,althoughitiscommonforthechildrenthemselvestouse Englishwithoneanotherandtheteacherduringkindergarten.(SeeFigure8.1foraschematic summaryoftheearlytotalimmersionprogram.)Atfirst,Frenchwastobeusedastheonly mediumofinstructionuntiltheendofgradethree;thiswaslateralteredsothatonlykindergarten andgradeoneweretaughtentirelyinFrench.WhenEnglishwasintroducedintothecurriculum, itwasusedtoteachEnglishlanguagearts,forapproximatelyonehourperday.Instruction throughEnglishwassubsequentlyexpandedinsuccessivegradestoincludeothersubjects,such asmathorscience.Bygradesix,ortheendofelementaryschool,60percentofthe 171

Figure8.1SchematicRepresentationofanEarlyTotalImmersionandaOneYearLate ImmersionProgram curriculumwastaughtinEnglishand40percentinFrench.Thiswasusuallyimplementedby teachingthroughEnglishduringthemorningandthroughFrenchduringtheafternoonofeach dayandalwayswithnativespeakersofEnglishandFrench,respectively.Thisbasicpatternis characteristicofmanycurrentearlytotalimmersionprograms,althoughthereare,ofcourse, variationsamongprograms.Forexample,earlyimmersionprogramsofferedelsewheredelaythe introductionofEnglishuntilgradethreeorevengradefourorlimittheamount 172

ofexposuretoEnglishonceitisintroduced(seeGenesee,1983,forareview).Someimportant variationswillbediscussedinalatersectionofthischapter.Followuptotheearlyimmersionyears isoftenprovidedatthesecondaryschoollevelbyofferinganumberofselectedcoursesinFrench. Thesemaybeeitherlanguageartsorothersubjectcoursessuchasgeographyorhistory.The particularcoursesandnumberofsuchcoursesthatstudentstakeatthislevelareamatterof individualstudentchoice. ThemostdistinctivefeatureoftheSt.Lambertimmersionprogramwasitsuseofthesecond languagetoteachregularacademicsubjects,suchasmathematics,science,andsocialstudies,in additiontolanguagearts.Thisisoneofthedistinctivecharacteristicsofallimmersionprograms. ImmersionteachersteachregularschoolsubjectsusingFrenchmuchastheywouldiftheirpupils werenativespeakersofthelanguage.Thesamesubjectmatterisnevertaughtinthesameschool yearusingbothEnglishandFrench.FormalinstructioninthegrammaticalrulesofFrenchis presentedintheFrenchlanguageartsclass,whichconstitutesalargepartoftheprimarygrades,as doesEnglishinthecaseofaregularEnglishprogram.Clearly,however,thechildrenarenotnative speakers,andsotheteachersemphasizeoralauralcommunicationskillsduringkindergartenand thefirsthalfofgradeone.Reading,writing,andotherliteracyskillsareintroducedslowlyandonly whenitisfeltthatthechildrenhaveacquiredthecorrespondingoral/aurallanguageskills.The childrenarenotrequiredtouseFrenchwiththeteacherorwithoneanotheruntilthesecondhalfof gradeone.Infact,thechildrencommonlyuseEnglishamongthemselvesandwiththeteacher duringthisstage. Generally,immersionprogramsaredesignedtocreatethesamekindsofconditionsthatoccur duringfirstlanguagelearning;namely,thereisanemphasisoncreatingadesirebythestudentto learnthelanguageinordertoengageinmeaningfulandinterestingcommunication(Macnamara, 1973;Terrell,1981).Thus,languagelearninginimmersionisincidentaltolearningabout mathematics,thesciences,thecommunity,andoneanother.Thisstandsinsharpcontrasttomore traditionalmethodsofsecondlanguageinstructionwheretheemphasisisontheconsciouslearning oftheelementsandrulesoflanguagefortheirownsake.Moreover,theimmersionprogramis designedtoallowthestudenttoapplyhisorher"naturallanguagelearning"orcognitiveabilitiesas ameansoflearningthelanguage.Itisnowgenerallyacceptedthatfirstlanguageacquisitionin childrenisasystematicprocessthatreflectsthechild'sactivecognitiveattemptstoformulate linguisticrulesthatcorrespondtoadultcompetenceinthelanguage.Thisprocessiscalledcreative construction(DulayandBurt,1978;Slobin,1973).Accordingtothisconceptualization, opportunitiestocommunicateinthelanguageareadvantageousforlearning,and"errors"area normalandimportantpartofthelearningprocess.Theimmersionapproachpermitsthelearnerto progressaccordingtohisorherownrateandstyle,againinmuchthesamewaythatfirstlanguage learnersdo(Bloom,Hood,andLightbown,1974;Nelson,1981). 173

AnotherdistinctivepedagogicalfeatureoftheCanadianimmersionprogramistheuseof monolinguallanguagemodelsand"linguisticterritories"withintheschool.TheFrenchteachersin theimmersionprogramspresentthemselvestothestudentsasmonolingualFrenchspeakers,even thoughinmostcasestheseteachersareverycompetentinEnglish.TheFrenchteachersin kindergartenandgradeoneespeciallymustknowenoughEnglishtounderstandthestudentswhose commentsareinitiallyallinEnglish.ManyofthestudentslearnabouttheirFrenchteachers' bilingualityonlyinthelatergradeswhentheyoverhearthemusingEnglishwithanEnglishteacher. TheclassroomsinwhichFrenchandEnglishinstructionarepresentedarekeptasdistinctas possible.ThismeansthatthechildrenusuallychangeclassroomsfortheFrenchandEnglishpartsof theschooldayonceEnglishisintroducedintothecurriculum.AnexplicitruletouseFrenchinthe FrenchclassroomandwiththeFrenchteachersisestablished.Thesetwostrategiestheuseof monolingualsecondlanguageteachermodelsandtheestablishmentofFrenchterritorieswithinthe schoolhavebeenadoptedandareobservedveryconscientiouslyinordertofacilitatethestudents' secondlanguagelearningbyencouraging,indeedrequiring,theiruseofthesecondlanguage. Otherwise,therewouldbeanaturaltendencyforthestudentstouseEnglish,theirstronger language. THESPREADOFIMMERSION:THEPRESENTSITUATION SincetheSt.Lambertexperimentbegan,immersionhasexpandeddramatically.Immersion programsarenowavailableinseveraldifferentforms,inavarietyoflanguages,andinallCanadian provincesandtheterritories.Thenumberofstudentsenrolledinimmersionincreasedfrom approximately17,763in1976to102,168in1982(Stern,1984).Participationinimmersion programsisvoluntary,andtodatethemajorityofprogramsservechildrenfrom"middleclass" socioeconomicbackgrounds.Thealternativeformsofimmersioncurrentlyavailabledifferprimarily withrespecttothegradelevel(s)duringwhichthesecondlanguageisusedasamajormediumof curriculuminstruction.Differentiationsareoftenmadebetween(1)early,(2)delayed,and(3)late immersion.Asecondarybasisofdifferentiationismadeaccordingtotheamountofinstruction providedinthesecondlanguage(viz.,totalversuspartial)and/orthenumberofyearsduringwhich thesecondlanguageisusedasamajormediumofinstruction.Excludedfromthisroughtaxonomy are(1)secondlanguageprogramsinwhichthesecondlanguageisusedforteachinglanguagearts onlyandonenonlanguagesubjectand(2)programsinwhichthesecondlanguageisneverusedto teachatleast50percentofthecurriculumduringanyschoolyear.Theselattertypesofprograms wouldgenerallyberegardedasenrichedsecondlanguageprograms. 174

EarlyImmersion Therearetwomaintypesofearlyimmersion:totalandpartial.Theearlytotalimmersion programhasalreadybeendescribedinthesectionontheSt.LambertExperimentandis schematicallyrepresentedinFigure8.1.Theearlypartialimmersionprogramdiffersinthatless than100percentofcurriculuminstructionduringtheprimarygrades(kindergarten,one,two, andthree)ispresentedthroughthesecondlanguage.Themostcommonformulais50percent French50percentEnglish.TheamountofFrenchinstructioninearlypartialimmersion programstendstoremainconstantthroughouttheelementarygrades,incontrasttototal immersionprogramsinwhichtheFrenchcomponentdecreases.Anotherdifferencebetween thesetwotypesofimmersionisthesequencingofliteracyinstruction.Intotalimmersion programs,literacytraininginthenativelanguageoccursafterliteracytraininginthesecond languagehasbegun.Inpartialimmersionprograms,literacytrainingtendstooccurinboth languagessimultaneouslyfromgradeoneon. Amongearlytotalimmersionalternatives,themainvariationinvolvesthegradelevelatwhich Englishinstructionisintroduceditmaybegradetwo,asinSt.Lambert,gradethree,orgrade four.Anothervariationamongearlytotalimmersionoptionsistheamountofinstruction presentedthroughEnglishonceitisintroducedintothecurriculum.Insomecases,English exposureincreasesquickly,forexample,from20percentingradethreeto60percentingrade five.Inothercases,itincreasesveryslowly(forexample,remainingstableat20percentduring gradesthree,four,andfive). DelayedImmersion Immersionprogramsthatpostponeuseofthesecondlanguageasamajormediumofinstruction untilthemiddleelementarygrades(i.e.,fourorfive)areclassifiedhereasdelayed.These programsusuallyofferacoresecondlanguagecourseoftwentytofortyfiveminutesadayinthe primarygradespriortotheimmersioncomponentwhichmaybeofoneortwoyearsduration (seeCziko,Holobow,andLambert,1977,foranexample).Thismaythenbefollowedbypartial immersionuntiltheendofelementaryschool,duringwhichlanguageartsandothersubject materialaretaughtthroughthesecondlanguage.Inthedelayedimmersion,optiontrainingin firstlanguageliteracyprecedestraininginsecondlanguageliteracy. LateImmersion Lateimmersionprogramspostponeintensiveuseofthesecondlanguageuntiltheendof elementaryschoolorthebeginningofsecondaryschool(Figure8.1).Inoneyearlate immersionprograms,allormostofthecurriculum,except 175

Englishlanguagearts,istaughtthroughthesecondlanguageforoneyear(see,forexample, Genesee,Polich,andStanley,1977).Intwoyearlateimmersionprograms,thisscheduleis repeatedfortwoconsecutiveyears(seeGenesee,1981).Lateimmersionprogramsmaybe precededbycoresecondlanguageinstructionthroughouttheelementarygrades,ortheymaybe precededbyspecialpreparatorysecondlanguagecoursesoneortwoyearsimmediatelypriorto immersion(seeSwain,1978).Mostlateimmersionoptionsoneyear/twoyearandwith/without priorcoresecondlanguageinstructionareusuallyfollowedinthehighergradesbyadvanced secondlanguageartscoursesand,insomecases,byselectednonlanguagecourses,suchas geography,thataretaughtthroughthesecondlanguage. DoubleImmersion Byfarthemostcommonalternativeformsofimmersion,asjustdescribed,involvetheuseofa singlesecondlanguage.GeneseeandLamberthaveinvestigatedvariationsofimmersionfor majorityEnglishspeakingchildreninwhichtwononnativelanguages(FrenchandHebrew)are usedasmajormediaofcurriculuminstructionduringtheelementarygrades(seeGeneseeand Lambert,1983).FrenchandHebrewwereselectedasimmersionlanguagesintheprogramsin questionbecausebothhavesocioculturalsignificancefortheparticipantsbutfordifferent reasons.Ontheonehand,French,beingoneoftheofficiallanguagesofCanada,hassocialand economicrelevancetothesechildrenandtheirfamiliesonadaytodaybasis.Inthisregard,the HebrewFrenchdoubleimmersionprogramsarethesameastheSt.Lambertprogramandother FrenchimmersionprogramsformajoritylanguagechildreninCanada.Ontheotherhand, Hebrewisvaluedbecauseofitsreligiousandculturalsignificanceandbecauseofitsincreasing nonsectarianimportanceasanationallanguageofIsrael.Inthisrespect,theHebrewFrench doubleimmersionprogramsdifferfromFrenchonlyimmersioninbeingheritagelanguageor languagerevitalizationprograms.Theunderlyingprinciplesofbothprogramsarenevertheless thesame,and,inparticular,theirsuccessispredicatedontheparticipationofchildrenwhoare membersofthemajoritylanguagegroup. InonetypeofdoubleimmersionprogramstudiedbyGeneseeandLambert,Englishspeaking childrenfromMontrealreceivedalltheircurriculuminstructionduringtheprimarygradesin FrenchandHebrew.TheFrenchcurriculumcomprisedlanguagearts,mathematics,science,and socialstudies.TheHebrewcurriculumcomprisedlanguagearts,history,andreligiousand culturalstudies.NativeFrenchandHebrewspeakingteacherswereusedtoteacheach curriculum.Englishwasnotintroduceduntilgradethreeinthecaseofoneschoolandgradefour inthecaseofanother.Wehavereferredtothisalternativeasearlydoubleimmersion.Incontrast, inanotherdoubleimmersionprogramEnglishalongwithFrenchandHebrewwereusedas mediaofinstructionfromkindergartenon.Thisprogramalternativehasbeenreferredtoas delayeddouble 176

immersionbecausetheamountofexposuretoFrenchincreasedsystematicallyfromfivehours perweekingradeonetotwelvehoursperweekingradesfiveandsix.Instructionthrough Englishdecreasedsomewhatfromtwelvehoursperweekingradeonetoninehoursperweekin gradesixasaresult.ExposuretoHebrewchangedinsignificantly. Theseprogramsaredescribedinsomedetailherebecausetheyrepresenteffectiveandfeasible modelsofmultilingual/multiculturaleducationofpossibleinteresttoethnolinguisticgroupswho areinterestedinrevitalizingheritagelanguagesandatthesametimewishtoacquirecompetence inanadditionalsecondlanguageofsomelocalornationalrelevance.Examplesotherthan HebrewFrenchimmersionforEnglishchildrencometomind.Forexample,UkrainianCanadians inwesternCanadamightwishtohavetheirchildren,whoinmostcaseshavebecomeAnglicized, acquirecompetenceinUkrainianwhilealsolearningCanada'sotherofficiallanguage,French. RESEARCHFINDINGS TheextensionofimmersionprogramstoalltheCanadianprovincesanditsevolutiontoinclude alternativeformsisattributableinnosmallmeasuretotheresearchcomponentthathas accompaniedthedevelopmentofimmersionfromthebeginning.Severallargescalelongitudinal evaluationshavebeensetupinanumberofCanadiancenterstomonitortheeffectivenessof immersionprogramsintheselocations.TheyincludetheProtestantSchoolBoardofGreater Montrealevaluations(Genesee,1983),theBilingualEducationProject,OISE(Swainand Lapkin,1982),theOttawaBoardofEducationProject(Sternetal.,1976),andtheBritish ColumbiaFrenchProject(ShapsonandDay,1980),aswellastheSt.LambertExperiment (LambertandTucker,1972).Theresultsoftheseevaluationsprovideacomprehensiveand reliableindicationofthelinguisticandacademicoutcomesofimmersion.Thefindingsreviewed herepertaintostudentsfrommiddlesocioeconomicbackgroundsbecausetheyconstitutethe majorityofparticipants(seeGenesee,1976b,foradiscussionofthesuitabilityofimmersionfor allchildren). Inbrief,assessmentoftheEnglishliteracyskills(e.g.,reading,spelling,writing)ofearlytotal immersionstudentshasrevealedthatduringtheprimarygradeswhennoinstructioninEnglishis provided,theyareusuallybehindtheirpeerswhohavebeeninanallEnglishprogram.Thisis notsurprisinginviewofthestudents'lackoftraininginEnglishliteracy.Whatissurprisingis theirabilitytotakeEnglishlanguagetestsandcompletethemreasonablywelldespitealackof suchtraining.Quitelikely,thisispossiblebecausetheimmersionstudentsareabletotransfer skillstheyhavebeentaughtinFrenchtoEnglish,alanguagetheyalreadyknowwellinitsaural andoralforms.Inotherwords,theydonothavetolearntoreadandwriteinEnglishfromthe beginningoncetheyhaveacquiredtheseskillsinFrench.Duringthesamegrades,earlytotal immersionstudentsdemonstratenodeficitsinlisteningcomprehension,aural 177

decoding,ororalcommunication.AstudybyGenesee,Tucker,andLambert(1975)foundthatin interpersonalcommunicationearlytotalimmersionstudentsweremoresensitivetothe communicativeneedsoftheirlistenersthanwerenonimmersionstudents.ThelaginEnglish literacythattheimmersionstudentsexperienceduringtheprimarygradesiseliminatedassoonas Englishlanguageinstructionisintroducedintothecurriculum.Evaluationofdifferentimmersion variantshasshownthatthiscatchupoccursattheendofoneyearofhavingreceivedEnglish languageartsinstructionwhetherEnglishisdelayeduntilgradestwo,three,orfour.Thishasalso beenfoundtobethecaseindoubleimmersionprograms(GeneseeandLambert,1983). Furthermore,followupassessmentsinhighergradeshaverevealedthattherearenolongterm advantagestointroducingEnglishinstructionintothecurriculumearlier(e.g.,gradetwo)rather thanlater(e.g.,gradefour).GeneseeandLambert(1983)foundthattheuseofEnglishasamedium ofinstructionfromkindergartenonindoubleimmersionprogramsappearstoinhibitsecond languageacquisition.Typically,earlypartialimmersionprograms,whichuseEnglish50percentof thetimeandFrench50percentofthetime,resultinequivalentlevelsofEnglishlanguage developmentasearlytotalimmersionprograms.Ithasbeenfoundthatstudentsindelayedandlate immersionprogramsalsodevelopnormallevelsofEnglishlanguageproficiencyandexperienceno lagswhatsoever. Theexpansionofimmersionprogramsshortlyaftertheirinaugurationin1965raisedconcernsabout theeffectivenessofsuchanapproachforchildrenwithlowlevelsofacademicorintellectualability andforchildrenwhohadrelativelylowlevelsofEnglishlanguagedevelopment.Inaseriesof studies,Genesee(1978)examinedtheEnglishlanguagedevelopmentofimmersionstudentswith lowacademicabilityincomparisonwiththatofsimilarstudentsinallEnglishprograms.Academic abilitywasassessedusingIQtests.Hefoundthatbelowaveragestudentsinimmersionachievedthe samelevelsofproficiencyinEnglishreading,spelling,vocabulary,andwritingasbelowaverage studentsintheEnglishprogram.Inotherwords,belowaveragestudentswerenothandicappedby theimmersionexperienceasmanyhadexpected.M.Bruck(1982)hasreportedsimilarresultsfor immersionchildrenwhowereconsidered"languagedisabled"inEnglishincomparisonwith similarlydisabledchildrenintheEnglishstream. ImmersionstudentshavebeenshowntoachievehigherlevelsofproficiencyinallaspectsofFrench, includingreading,writing,listeningcomprehension,andoralcommunication,thanstudents receivingcoreFrenchlanguageinstruction.Thisistobeexpectedinviewoftheconsiderably greaterexposuretoFrenchprovidedbyimmersion.ResearchbyGenesee(1976a)hasfoundthat belowaveragestudentsinearlyimmersionprogramscannotbedistinguishedfromtheirabove averagepeersbynativeFrenchspeakingevaluatorswhoareaskedtosubjectivelyassesstheiroral productionandlisteningcomprehensionskills.Incontrast,aboveaverageimmersionstudents usuallyoutperformbelowaveragestudentsonteststhatassessliteracyandacademicachievement, for 178

example,readingcomprehensionandmathematics.ComparisonsoftheFrenchlanguage proficiencyofimmersionstudentswiththatofnativeFrenchspeakingstudentshasindicatedthat immersionstudentsachieveveryhighlevelsofcommunicativeabilitybutthattheirproficiency isnotnativelikeevenbytheendofsixorsevenyears. Theresultsofacademicachievementtestinghaveshownthatimmersionstudentsachievethe samelevelsofacademicproficiencyinmathandscience,forexample,asEnglishcontrol studentswhohavebeenreceivingallacademicinstructioninEnglish. Finally,investigationsregardingsomeofthesocialpsychologicalaspectsofimmersionindicate thattheparticipatingstudentsdevelopthesameidentitywithandpositiveattitudestowardthe EnglishCanadiancultureandlanguageasdostudentsattendingEnglishlanguageprograms (Genesee,1984).TheattitudesofimmersionstudentstowardFrenchCanadianstendtobemore positivethanthoseofnonimmersionstudentsduringtheearlyyearsoftheprogramandthen cometoresemblethoseoftheirnonimmersioncompatriotsinlateryears.Itispossiblethatlack ofongoingcontactwithFrenchCanadiansmayaccountforthisdevelopmentalshift.Immersion studentsgenerallyindicateawillingnesstouseFrenchwhencalledupontodoso.Studentsin Montreal,forexample,reportusingFrenchinfacetofaceencountersmuchmoreoftenthando nonimmersionstudents.Atthesametime,thereisevidencethatimmersionstudentsdonot activelyseekoutcontactwithFrenchCanadiansoropportunitiestouseFrench.Theyalso expressreservationsaboutusingFrenchattheexpenseofEnglish.Itseemsquitelikelythatsome ofthesefeelingsstemfromconflictsbetweenFrenchandEnglishCanadiansinsocietyatlarge. Notwithstandingsuchreservationsandconflict,immersionstudentsexpresspositiveattitudes towardlearningFrenchintheimmersionprograms.Manyoftheircommentsindicatethatthey areinfavorofmoreFrench,especiallyduringthefollowupyears.Incontrast,nonimmersion studentsexpressrelativelynegativeattitudestowardtheirFrenchprogramandtowardlearning Frenchingeneral. Takentogether,thesefindingsindicatethatimmersionprogramsaresuitableforchildrenwith diverselearningandlanguagecharacteristicsprovidedtheyaremembersofamajoritylanguage group,suchasEnglishCanadians.Thesuitabilityofimmersionprogramsforchildrenfrom minoritylanguagegroupsisanopenquestion,subjecttoempiricalinvestigation.Inareviewof researchontheeffectivenessofimmersionprogramsforallchildren,Genesee(1976b) concludedthat"theresultsfromtheexistingresearcharegenerallyinconclusiveonthesuitability of...immersionforminoritygroupchildren"(p.510).Onlyonestudypertinenttothisissue wasavailableatthattime.Therehasbeennoresearchprogresssincethen.Proponentsofsecond languageimmersionprogramsformajorityEnglishspeakingchildrenhavegenerallydoubted theirapplicabilityforchildrenfromminoritylanguagebackgroundswhodonotenjoythesame individualorsocialrespectthatEnglishspeakersinNorthAmericaenjoy(HernandezChavez, 1984).InCanada,EnglishimmersionprogramsforFrench 179

speakingCanadianshavenotbeenrecommendedbecausethisformofeducationposesawide scalethreattoFrenchinNorthAmerica.Thatis,toomuchEnglishtoosooncouldunderminethe vitalityofFrench.Theimportantpointhereisthattheimplementationofspecificformsof bilingualeducationmusttakeintoaccountthesocioculturalcontextinwhichschoolingtakes place. SUMMARY ImmersionprogramswerefirstinstitutedintheProvinceofQuebec,Canada,inthemid1960s. Theyweredevelopedinreactiontoparticularsocioculturaleventsintheprovinceatthetime,and theyweredesignedtorespondtotheneedsandcharacteristicsofaspecificgroupofchildren. SincetheoriginalSt.Lambertproject,immersionhasbecomearelativelywidespreadand commonplaceformofeducationintheCanadianpublicschoolsystem.Theresultsofnumerous longitudinalscientificevaluationshaveconsistentlyindicatedthatmajorityEnglishlanguage childrenparticipatingintheseprogramsdonotexperienceanylongtermdeficitsinnative languagedevelopmentoracademicachievement.Atthesametime,theyachievefunctional competenceinthesecondlanguagethatismarkedlybetterthanthatofstudentsincoresecond languageprograms.Althoughnottrulynativelikeinallaspects,thesecondlanguageskillsof immersionstudentsareratedveryhighlyevenbynativespeakersofthelanguage.Since immersionprogramsinCanadaareoptional,theseresultsnecessarilypertaintostudentswho havechosenorwhoseparentshavechosenontheirbehalftoattendtheprograminsteadof regularEnglishschools. ThedocumentedsuccessoftheCanadianimmersionprogramsdependsonacombinationof pedagogicalpractices,asoutlinedearlier,aswellascertainsocioculturalconditions.Themajor socioculturalconditionsincludethefollowing:(1)theparticipatingchildrenspeakthelanguage ofthemajorityinNorthAmerica,thatis,English;(2)educational,teaching,andadministrative personnelworkinginimmersionprogramsvalueandsupport,directlyorindirectly,thechildren's homelanguageandculture;(3)theparticipatingchildrenandtheirparentssimilarlyvaluetheir homelanguageandcultureanddonotwishtoforsakeeither;and(4)acquisitionofthesecond languageisregardedbyallconcernedasapositiveadditiontothechild'srepertoireofskills. Thus,thesuccessofimmersionismorethansimplyaquestionofwhentousestudents'firstand secondlanguagesforinstructionalpurposes.Itisequallydependentonanunderstandingofthe socioculturalconditionsinwhichthestudentsareraisedandeducated. Interestinimmersionfrombothpedagogicalandlinguisticperspectivescontinuesasresearchers continuetoexplorethesuitabilityofimmersionforallchildren.GeneseeandLambert,for example,arecurrentlyexaminingitseffectivenessforblackaswellaswhitechildrenfrominner cityneighborhoodsinU.S.schooldistricts.Previousresearchhasfocusedlargelyonmiddle class,whitechildren.AnexperimentalearlytotalimmersionprograminMohawk,an 180

Amerindianlanguage,iscurrentlyunderwayforIndianchildrenwhodonotspeakMohawkbut ratherhavelearnedEnglishasanativelanguage.Asystematicevaluationofthisprojectisplanned byGeneseeandLambertaswell.Researchersarebeginningtoaddressimportantissuesconcerning teachingapproachesinimmersionclasses(Swain,d1984)andtherelationshipbetweenintergroup relationsinsocietyatlargeandrelationsbetweenEnglishandFrenchCanadianteachersin immersionschools(CleghornandGenesee,1984).Thefindingsfromthesestudieswillhelpto expandouralreadyrichunderstandingoftheimmersionapproachtobilingualeducation. NOTE 1. DiscussionofthesocialandpoliticaleventsthatprecededtheemergenceofFrenchimmersion in1965focusesonissuespertainingtolanguageandEnglishFrenchrelations.Thiscoverageis necessarilysimplifiedandisnotintendedtoreflectacompleteorunbiasedinterpretationof history. BIBLIOGRAPHY AnisfieldE.,andW.E.Lambert.1964."EvaluationalReactionsofBilingualandMonolingual ChildrentoSpokenLanguages."JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology69:8997. BloomL.M.,HoodL.M.,andP.Lightbown.1974."ImitationinLanguageDevelopment:If,When, andWhy."CognitivePsychology6:380420. BrownR.C.,CazdenC.andU.Bellugi.1970."TheChild'sGrammarfromItoIII."In Psycholinguistics,ed.R.Brown.NewYork:FreePress,pp.10054. BruckM.1981."LanguageImpairedChildren:PerformanceinanAdditiveBilingualEducation Program."AppliedLinguistics3:4560. CleghornA.,andF.Genesee.1984.LanguagesinContact:AnEthnographicStudyofInteractionin anImmersionSchool.Montreal:PsychologyDepartment,McGillUniversity. CookR.,SaywellJ.,andJ.Ricker.1977.Canada:AModernStudy.Toronto:Clarke,IrwinandCo. CumminsJ.,ed.1983.HeritageLanguageEducation:IssuesandDirections.Ottawa:Ministryof SupplyandServices. CzikoG.A.,HolobowN.,andW.E.Lambert.1977.AComparisonofThreeElementarySchool AlternativesforLearningFrench:ChildrenatGradesFourandFive.Montreal:Departmentof Psychology,McGillUniversity. d'AnglejanA.,andG.R.Tucker.1973."SociolinguisticCorrelatesofSpeechStyleinQuebec."In LanguageAttitudes:CurrentTrendsandProspects,ed.R.W.ShuyandR.W.Fasold.Washington, D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress,pp.127. DayR.R.1982."Children'sAttitudesTowardLanguage."InAttitudesTowardLanguageVariation: SocialandAppliedContexts,ed.E.B.RyanandH.Giles.London:EdwardArnold,pp.11631. DulayH.,andM.Burt.1978."SomeRemarksonCreativityinLanguageAcquisition." 181

InSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch:IssuesandImplications,ed.W.C.Ritchie.New York:AcademicPress,pp.6589. GendronJ.D.1972.CommissionofInquiryonthePositionoftheFrenchLanguageandon LanguageRightsinQuebec:LanguageatWork.Quebec:L'editeurofficielduQuebec. GeneseeF.1976a."TheRoleofIntelligenceinSecondLanguageLearning."LanguageLearning 26:26780. .1976b."TheSuitabilityofImmersionProgramsforAllChildren."CanadianModern LanguageReview32:494515. .1978."ALongitudinalEvaluationofanEarlyImmersionSchoolProgram."Canadian JournalofEducation3:3150. .1981."AComparisonofEarlyandLateSecondLanguageLearning."CanadianJournalof BehavioralSciences13:11525. .1983."BilingualEducationofMajorityLanguageChildren:TheImmersionExperimentsin Review."AppliedPsycholinguistics4:146. .Inpress."BeyondBilingualism:SocialPsychologicalStudiesofFrenchImmersion ProgramsinCanada."CanadianJournalofBehavioralScience. GeneseeF.,andW.E.Lambert.1983."TrilingualEducationforMajorityLanguageChildren." ChildDevelopment54:10514. GeneseeF.,PolichE.,andM.H.Stanley.1977."AnExperimentalFrenchImmersionProgramat theSecondarySchoolLevel1969to1974."CanadianModernLanguageReview33:31832. GeneseeF.,RogersP.,andN.Holobow.1983."TheSocialPsychologyofSecondLanguage Learning:AnotherPointofView."LanguageLearning33:20924. GeneseeF.,TuckerG.R.,andW.E.Lambert.1975."CommunicationSkillsofBilingual Children."ChildDevelopment46:101014. HernandezChavezE.1984."TheInadequacyofEnglishImmersionEducationasanEducational ApproachforLanguageMinorityStudentsintheUnitedStates."InStudiesonImmersion Education:ACollectionforU.S.Educators.Sacramento,Calif.:CaliforniaStateDepartmentof Education,pp.14481. LambertW.E.,R.C.Hodgson,R.C.Gardner,andS.Fillenbaum.1960."EvaluationalReactions toSpokenLanguages."JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology60:4451. LambertW.,andR.Tucker.1972.BilingualEducationofChildren:TheSt.LambertExperiment. Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. MacLennanH.1945.TwoSolitudes.Montreal:Duell,Sloan,andPearce.

MacnamaraJ.1973."Nurseries,Streets,andClassrooms."ModernLanguageJournal57:25054. MelikoffO.1972."AppendixA:ParentsasChangeAgentsinEducation,"inLambertW.andR. Tucker.1972.BilingualEducationofChildren:TheSt.LambertExperiment.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. NelsonK.1981."IndividualDifferencesinLanguageDevelopment:Implicationsfor DevelopmentandLanguage."DevelopmentalPsychology17:17087. O'BryanK.G.,J.G.Reitz,andO.Kuplowska,eds.1976.NonofficialLanguages:AStudyin CanadianMulticulturalism.Ottawa:MinistryofSupplyandServices,Canada. ShapsonS.M.,andE.Day.1980.LongitudinalEvaluationoftheEarlyEntry ImmersionPrograminCoquitlamSchoolDistrict:ReporttotheEndofYear6 182

PrograminCoquitlamSchoolDistrict:ReporttotheEndofYear6.Burnaby,B.C.:Facultyof Education,SimonFraserUniversity. SlobinD.I.1973."CognitivePrerequisitesfortheDevelopmentofGrammar."InStudiesin ChildLanguageandDevelopment,ed.C.A.FergusonandD.I.Slobin.NewYork:Holt, RinehartandWinston,175280. SternH.H.1984."TheImmersionPhenomenon."LanguageandSociety.Ottawa:Ministryof SupplyandServices,pp.47. SwainM.1978."FrenchImmersion:Early,LateorPartial?"CanadianModernLanguage Review34:57785. .1984.19thReportoftheActivitiesoftheModernLanguageCentre.Toronto:Ontario InstituteforStudiesinEducation. SwainM.,andS.Lapkin.1982.EvaluatingBilingualEducation:ACanadianCaseStudy. Clevedon,Avon,U.K.:MultilingualMatters. Terrell,T.D.1981."TheNaturalApproachinBilingualEducation."InSchoolingandLanguage MinorityStudents:ATheoreticalFramework.DevelopedbytheCaliforniaStateDepartmentof Education,OfficeofBilingualBiculturalEducation.LosAngeles:CaliforniaStateUniversity Evaluation,Dissemination,andAssessmentCenter,pp.11746. 183

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 184

9 BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUAL EDUCATIONINTHEPEOPLE'SREPUBLIC OFCHINA JamesH.Y.Tai AccordingtothelatestcensusconductedbythegovernmentofthePeople'sRepublicofChinain 1982,thecountryhasatotalpopulationof1,003,937,078,ofwhich936,703,824areethnic Chinese,knownas"Han"and67,233,254aremembersoffiftyfivenonChineseethnicgroups, referredtoinChinaas"nationalminorities."(The1982censusdatacanbefoundinStatistical YearbookofChina1984,compiledbyStateStatisticalBureau,thePeople'sRepublicofChina, andpublishedbyEconomicInformationAgency,HongKong.)Intermsofpercentages,Han Chineseconstitute93.3percentofthetotalpopulation,andtheminorities,6.7percent.While HanChineselivemainlyinthedenselypopulatedeasternplainsandvalleys,theminorities spreadoutalongwesternhighlandsandthenorthernandsouthwesternborders,theirareas coveringabout50percentto60percentofthetotalnationalterritory. Theworkofidentifyingnationalminoritiesisnotcompletelydoneyet.Accordingtothe1982 census,therearestill879,201personswhoseethnicidentityisnotclear.Therearealsoseveral languageswhoserelationshipwithotherlanguagesisundecided.Inidentifyingnational minorities,criteriaotherthanlinguisticandculturalfactorsarealsotakenintoconsideration. Onecriterionhastodowithhistoricalbackground.TheoriginalHuipeoplecamefromCentral AsiaduringtheMongols'conquestinthethirteenthcenturyandwerecomprisedofArabs, Persians,andotherswhobelievedinIslam.Inthecourseofhistory,theylivedamongHan Chineseandwereassimilatedbythem.Ontheotherhand,manyHanChinesehavecometo adoptIslam.Now"Hui"referstoChineseMoslems,whospeakChineseanddifferfromHan Chineseprimarilyinreligion.TheManchushavebeencompletelyassimilatedtoHanChinesein bothlanguageandcustom,exceptforveryfewoldpersonslivinginsomeremotevillagesin Heilongjiang,thenorthernmostprovinceofChina.TheManchuswererecognized 185

fortheundeniablehistoricalevidencethattheywereoriginallyaseparatenationality.Another criterionemployedintheidentificationworkinvolvesethnicselfidentificationoftheethnicgroup. Thus,thefeelingsofselfidentityfeltbytheManchupeopleareusedtoreinforcethehistorical evidence(Lehmann,1974:11619). HanChinesespeakagreatvarietyofmutuallyunintelligibledialects,eventhoughtheyuseone singlewrittenlanguageandhaveadoptedStandardMandarinastheircommonlanguage.These dialectsareusuallygroupedbyChineselinguistsintoeightmajordialects(Egerod,1967:95).They aresimilaringrammar,andtoalesserextentinvocabulary,butverydifferentinpronunciation.In termsofintelligibility,theyareperhapsasdifferentfromeachotherasSpanish,French,andItalian withinthefamilyofRomancelanguages.Mandarinspeakersconstitutethelargestpercentage,about 70percent.TheylivenorthoftheYangtzeRiverandalsosouthoftheriverinsouthwesternChina. AlthoughitiscustomarytosubgroupMandarindialectsintoNorthern,Northwestern,and SouthwesternMandarin,theyaremutuallyintelligible.Intheeast,includingtheShanghaiarea,a largepartofthepopulationspeaksWudialects.Inthesoutheast,thereareXiangdialectsinHunan, GandialectsinJiangxi,MindialectsinFujian,YuedialectsinGuangdong,andHakkadialectsin thejunctionareaofJiangxi,Fujian,andGuangdongprovinces.Withineachofthesedialectareas, manydialectsexist,someofwhicharemutuallyunintelligible,andmanysubdivisionswithineach dialectcanbemadeaccordingtotheirdegreeofmutualintelligibility.Dialectaldifferencesarealso exhibitedinseveralofthenationalminorities(Maetal.,1981),thoughtoamuchlesserextentthan HanChinese.Yihassixverydifferentdialects.Tibetan,Mongolian,Miao,Dai,Nu,Hani,Dawoer, andEwenkeachhavethreedialects.Qiang,Naxi,andAchangeachcanbedividedintotwomajor dialectalgroups.InthecaseofMiao,Nu,andHani,thedialectsareunintelligibletoeachother.An extremecasecanbefoundinGelao,whichdisplaysnumerousmutuallyunintelligibledialects amongsomefiftythousandindividualsinhabitingacountysizearea.AmongtheYuku,witha populationoflittlemorethantenthousand,threedifferentlanguagesareusedbythreedifferent groupsChinese,TurkicYuku,andMongolianYuku. Asfaraswrittenlanguagesareconcerned,HanChineseshareonesinglewrittenlanguage, notwithstandingthegreatdiversityofdialects.ItisbasedonthespokenStandardMandarinand usesasystemofideographicsymbols,knownas"Hancharacters"or"Chinesecharacters."Huiand Manchualsousethesystem,havingbeenassimilatedbyHanChineseandspeakingChinese.Itis interestingtoobservethatwhileHui,regardlessoftheirArabicandPersianancestry,probablyhad neverdevelopedtheirownwritingsystems,Manchudiddevelopasystemderivedfromthe Mongolianalphabetattheendofthesixteenthcentury.InadditiontoHuiandManchu,several minoritiesalsouseChinesecharacters,eventhoughtheyhavenotlosttheirspokenlanguages. EithertheyneverdevelopedtheirownwritingsystemsortheyhavebeenassimilatedbyHan Chineseinthisrespect.TheyareHezhe,Ewenk,Elunchun,Achang,Pumi, 186

Nu,Jing,Dongxiang,Tu,Tujia,Sala,Baoan,She,Benglong,Qiang,andBai.Dawoershiftedfrom ManchurianorthographytoChinesecharactersafterthefalloftheManchus'dynastyin1911(Maet al.,1981). Tibetan,Menba,andtoalimiteddegreeLuobauseTibetanorthography,andtheMongoliansand nomadictribesamongvariousminoritiesinthenorthandthenorthwestuseMongolian orthography.KoreanorthographyisusedbytheKoreanslivinginManchuriaaswellasinKorea. SlavicorthographyisusedbytheRussians.TheXibogrouplivinginXinjiangredesignedtheir Manchurianorthographyin1947.Kazakh,Khalkas,Uzbek,andUighur,whoselanguageisalso usedbyTajik,allhavetheirowntraditionalorthographybasedonArabicletters.Recently,theyhave alsobeenprovidedwithanorthographyaccordingtothePinyinprinciples,theromanization principlesforStandardMandarin.LahuandJingpoeachonceusedaLatinsystemdesignedby Westernmissionaries.Sincetheyareoutdatedandhaveneverbeenpromoted,theyhavebeen updatedaccordingtothePinyinprinciples(Maetal.,1981). BeforetheCommunistChinesecametopowerin1949,onlytwentyoneminorities(includingHui andManchuwhichhadadoptedChinesespokenandwrittenlanguages)haddevelopedawritten language.From1955to1957,theChinesegovernmentassistedthefollowingminoritiesin developingtheirwrittenlanguagesinromanizationbasedonthePinyinprinciples:Zhuang,Miao, Dong,Hani,Buyi,Li,Lisu,Wa,andNaxi.AlthoughNaxihasatraditionalwrittenlanguagebased onideographicprinciples,itsuseisnowlimitedtoreligion,folklore,andballads.Thegovernment hasalsohelpedDaisystematizeitsvariousspellingsystemsintotwosetstosuittwomajordialects. Yihasusedaverycomplicatedideographicsystemsincethethirteenthcentury,butthegovernment helpedYireformandsimplifythesystem(Maetal.,1981). HISTORICALBACKGROUND SincetheinceptionofChinesecivilizationsometimebeforefourmillenniaago,Chinahasbeena stageforcontacts,conflicts,coexistence,andassimilationforvariousraceslivingintheeasternhalf oftheAsiancontinent.ChinesecivilizationstartedaroundthemiddlereachoftheYellowRiver. ManyChinesehistorianstendtoholdtheviewthattheearliestdynasties,thatis,Xia(ca.2100ca. 1600B.C.),Shang(ca.1600ca.1066B.C.),andZhou(ca.1066221B.C.)actuallyrepresentthree differentraceswithsomecommoncustomsandreligiousbeliefs,eventhoughtheChinese themselvessinceConfucius(551479B.C.)haveperceivedthemasthreedifferentdynastiesofone singlerace,thatis,Chinese(Fitzgerald,1961:133;FairbankandReischauer,1960:3252).Allthree groupslivedaroundthemiddlereachoftheYellowRiver,competingwitheachother.Xiawas conqueredbyShang,whichinturnwasreplacedbyZhouastherulinggroup.Theywere surroundedbyotherraceswithnamessuchasYiintheeast,MiaoandManinthesouth,Qiangand RonginthewestandDiinthenorth.TheseraceshavebeenregardedasnonChineseinChinese history. 187

ThefeudalstatesbasedonthevassalfiefrelationshipestablishedinthebeginningoftheZhou dynastywasfinallyreplacedbyindependentwaningkingdoms(403221B.C.).Manyofthese kingdomswereestablishedbynonChinese,suchasthepowerfulQininthewestandChuinthe south,althoughtheyhadalreadyadoptedChineseculturebythattime.In221B.C.,Chinawas forthefirsttimeunifiedbytheQinunderacentralgovernment.Thus,fromabout1600B.C.to 221B.C.,peopleinthenorthernpartofChinaproperunderwentalongperiodofmigrationand assimilation.AsclearlyexpressedinChineseclassicalliterature,by221B.C.peopleinnorthern Chinahadcometoviewthemselvesasbelongingtoonesingleracewithalongculturaltradition. TheunificationofChinain221B.C.underonecentralgovernmentwithanelaboratelydesigned andrigorouslyenforceduniformpoliticoeconomicsystemthroughoutChinaresultedina fundamentallyimportantstepfortheselfidentificationofpeoplesindifferentregionswiththe Chinesecivilization.TheQindynasty,primarilyduetoitsextensiveandrapidreform,was quicklyreplacedbyamoremoderateHandynastyin206B.C.DuringtheHandynasty(206 B.C.220A.D.)Chinaexperiencedalongperiodofprosperityandstability.Chineselaterbegan tousetheword"Han"todistinguishthemselvesfromotherraces.Itshouldbeclearthatfromthe verybeginningthenotionofHanChinesehasbeenmoreofculturalcontentthanofgenetic composition.ItwasalsoduringthisperiodthatChinesebeganfrequentcontactswithotherraces inwhatisknownasXinjiangtodayandinCentralAsia.ThesecontactsintroducedChinese inventionssuchassilkandpapertotheWest,andvariouskindsoffruitsandreligionsfrom CentralAsiatoChina(Fitzgerald,1961:174)201).ItispossiblethatChinesewordssuchas putao("grape")andpipa("loquat")areloanwordsfromCentralAsia(Kratochvil,1970:65)). ShortlyfollowingtheendoftheHandynastyin220A.D.,Chinasufferedmorethanthree hundredyearsofdisunificationandwars.ManyareasofnorthernChinawereconqueredbynon Chinesepeoplesatdifferenttimes.AccordingtoanofficialChinesehistoricalaccount,almost halfoftheinhabitantsinnorthernChinawerenotHanChinese.Atthesametime,alarge numberofHanChineseinnorthernChinamigratedtosouthernChina.Thus,duringtheperiod 220589A.D.,HanChineseblendedwithotherracesinChinaproper,northandsouth (Fitzgerald,1961:24964;FairbankandReischauer,1960:13133,14853).Whileitis presumablytruethatthenonHanpopulationwaslargelyassimilatedintotheHanpopulation owingtotherelativelyhighercultureofthelatter,itcannotbeassumedthattheimpactof intermarriagesamongHanandnonHanpeoplehadnotreshapedChinesecultureandlanguage. Theextentoftheculturalreshapingduringthisperiodisyettobeexaminedinfutureresearch. OnethingforcertainisthatthegeneticcompositionofHanChinesewasonceagainalteredand enriched. WhenChinawasunifiedagaininthegloriousSuiTangperiod(581907A.D.),Chinawasthe mostpowerfulandprosperouscountryintheworld.Interactionsamongdifferentnationalities wereaccordinglyenhancedtoanextenthitherto 188

unseen.TheemperorsoftheearlyTangappointedleadersofvariousnationalitiesasgovernorsin chargeofadministrativeandmilitarypoliciesoftheirownstates.Moresignificantly,many nationalitiesincludingGreek,Jew,Persian,andArabwerelivinginChinawiththeirownreligions( Fitzgerald,1961:30840;FairbankandReischauer,1960:17682).Anotheraspectofthe internationalismofthisperiodwasreflectedbythewayinwhichneighboringpeoplessoughtto imitatetheTangculture.ThefirstunifiedTibetangovernment,establishedintheseventhcentury, andthestateofNanchao,foundedbytheThaiinYunnanaround740,werebothdirectlyinspired bytheTangsystemofrule.Silla,theKoreanempireintheseventhcentury,andthefirstTungusic kingdomofBohaiinManchuriaandnorthKoreafrom713to926A.D.,alsocloselycopiedTang institutions(FairbankandReischauer,1960:177).TheJapaneseintheseventhandeighthcenturies adoptednotonlyTanginstitutionsbutalsotheChinesewritingsystem(FairbankandReischauer, 1960:47375,49495).ChinawasinasensesimilartotheUnitedStatestodayinthatitwasa prosperoussocietyopentodifferentnationalitiesandreligionsandinthatitwasregardedasthe paramountmilitarypowerandastheobviousmodelforgovernmentandculture. AttheendoftheTangdynasty(618907A.D.).Chinawasdividedintomanysmallkingdomsfor aboutseventyyears.Subsequently,northernChinawasruledbyaseminomadicMongolpeople knownastheKhitanandTanguttribesofTibetans(FairbankandReischauer,1961:196200)and thenbyTungusictribesknownastheJurched(FairbankandReischauer,1961:20811).Song,aHan Chinesedynasty,movedtothesouthin1127A.D.Againformorethanonehundredandfiftyyears, northernChinawasruledbynonHanpeoples,andHanChinesecontinuedtomovetothesouth.In 1279A.D.,MongolsconqueredallofChinaandruleditfornearlyonehundredyears,butlaterwere overthrownbyHanChinesein1368A.D.However,theManchusruledChinafrom1644A.D.until the1911revolution(FairbankandReischauer,1960:243393).TheassimilationofManchusinto HanChinesewasduepartlytotheirmigrationintoChinaproper,andpartlytothecontinuous migrationofHanChineseintoManchuriaduringthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.In moderntimes,theChineseCommunistrevolutionfrom1925to1949involvedmanynational minorities,especiallyduringtheperiodoftheLongMarchfrom1935to1941,inwhichChinese Communiststraveledmostlyintheterritoryinhabitedbynationalminorities.Recentlyduringthe CulturalRevolution(196676).hundredsofthousandsofyoungandeducatedHanChinesewere persuadedorassignedtosettledowninminoritydominatedareas. HanChinesecannotbeconstruedasageneticallyhomogeneousethnicgroup.Duringitslong courseofevolution,thisracehasabsorbedotherracialstockstogetherwithsomeselectedfeatures oftheircultures.Likewise,Hui,Manchu,Mongol,Tibetan,Uighur,andothermajornational minoritiesarenothomogeneous.Eachofthem,notunlikeHanChinese,hasundergonealong historyofformation,expansion,andtransformation.TheoriginalancestorsofHuiwereArabs, Persians,andotherpeoplesfromCentralAsiawhobelievedinIslamand 189

whowerebroughttoChinabyMongolstohelpthemruleHanChineseinthethirteenthcentury. Inthenexttwocenturies,theyabsorbedsomeHanChinese,Mongols,Uighurs,andothers, becominganethnicgroupidentifiablewithIslam.Inthebeginningoftheirformation,theArabic andPersianlanguageswereprobablyusedalongwiththeChineselanguage.Lateron,having spreadoverallofChinaandmingledwithHanChinese,thesegroupsadoptedHanChinese surnamesandeventuallylosttheirlanguages(Maetal.,1981:12325). TheManchuswereaTungusicpeoplewhosehistorycanbetracedbacktoabouttwothousand yearsago.Throughouthistory,theyhadmorefrequentcontactswithHanChinesethanother nationalitieshad.Intheseventhcentury,theyruledastatesubordinatetotheTangdynasty namedBohaiandbecameacquaintedwithChineseculture.Inthetwelfthcentury,theywere calledJurchedbytheChinese.TheyoccupiedManchuria,partofMongolia,andthenorthern partofChinaproper.Inthethirteenthcentury,theywereconqueredbytheMongolsandwere underthemuntiltheMongolswereoverthrownbyHanChineseinthelatefourteenthcentury.In theMingdynasty(13681644A.D.),theManchusweresubordinatetoHanChinese.Aboutthe beginningoftheseventeenthcentury,theManchuswereweldedintoapowerfulorganization underNurhachi,whowasconversantwiththeChinesecultureandpoliticalsystem.Thename Qingwasassumedatthattime.ManyMongolsandHanChinesewereincorporatedintothe Manchus'armies,andKoreanswerealsobroughttoacknowledgetheManchus'suzerainty.Atthe endofthesixteenthcentury,theManchusdevelopedtheirwritingsystemfromtheMongolian system,referredtoasthe"oldManchurianlanguage."Itwasrevisedandimprovedintheearly seventeenthcenturyandwasreferredtoasthe"newManchurianlanguage"(Maetal.,1981:27 28).In1644A.D.,theManchusmarchedonPekingandbecametherulersofChina,replacing theMingdynasty.AttheheightoftheQingdynasty,itruledoverChinaproper,Manchuria, Mongolia,Xinjiang,andTibet(FairbankandReischauer,1960:35463).Duringitsmorethan twohundredandfiftyyearsofrule,variousnationalitiesincreasedtheircontactssignificantly.In particular,ahugenumberofHanChinesemigratedintoManchuria.Ontheotherhand,having successfullyruledChinaproperforsuchalongperiod,theManchuseventuallywereassimilated intotheHanChineseculture,andlosttheirlanguageaswell(Guan,1971). TheMongolswererelatedlinguisticallyandpossiblyraciallytotheTurkishpeopleandthe TungusicpeoplewhoestablishedaKhitankingdomcoveringthepresentMongoliaand Manchuriatowardthecloseoftheninthcenturyandthebeginningofthetenthcentury. Originally,"Mongol"wasthenameofasmalltribebutlaterbecamethecommonnameformany tribeslivingtothesouthandeastofLakeBaikal,onthebordersofwhatarenowOuter Mongolia,Siberia,andManchuria.Inthetwelfthcentury,underGenghisKhan'sskillfuland vigorousleadership,thesetribeswereweldedintoaformidablefightingforce.Havingbrought togetherthepeoplesofMongoliaandtheUighursintoday'sXinjiang,GenghisKhanmovedto thesouthandeliminatedtheXiXiakingdom, 190

whichhadbeenestablishedbyaTangutpeoplespeakingaTibetoBurmeselanguage,andtheJin kingdom,whichhadbeenestablishedbytheJurched.In1260A.D.,Khubilai,agrandsonof GenghisKhan,movedthecapitaltotoday'sBeijing.In1279A.D.,theYuandynastywas establishedinChina.TheMongolswereskillfulatrulingdifferentnationalities.Uighurs, Jurched,andothernonHanpeoplesweregivenhighpositionstoruletheHanChinesepopulace( FairbankandReischauer,1960:24376).TheyadaptedthealphabeticUighurscripttoformthe Mongolianalphabet,whichprovidedthebasefortheManchurianalphabet.Younggenerations wereputtoschooltostudyConfucianclassicsandotheraspectsofHanChineseculture.Even afterthecollapseoftheYuandynasty,theMongolscontinuedtokeepclosecontactswithHan Chinese,Tibetan,Uighur,andHui.Variouskindsofliteraturefromthesenationalitieswith writtentraditionsweretranslatedintoMongolian.Thesetranslationsnotonlyenrichedthe Mongolianliterature,butalsocontributedtothegrowthofvocabularyandstandardizationofthis language.Moreimportantly,manybilingualdictionariesandgrammarswerecompiledandthus greatlyfacilitatedcommunicationbetweentheMongolsandothernationalities(Maetal., 1981:7172). TheearliestTibetansdwelledalongthemiddlereachoftheBrahmaputraRiver.Inthesixteenth century,theyestablishedakingdomcalled"Bod,"anametheTibetanshaveusedtocall themselves.TheysetupalegalsystemanddesignedtheTibetanalphabet,whichconsistsoffour vowelsandthirtyconsonants(Maetal.,1981:25759).TheTibetansprovedaformidableenemy eventothepowerfulearlyTangdynasty.Theywerecalled"Turfan"bytheChinese.Twice(641 A.D.and710A.D.)aChineseprincesswasgiventotheTibetanrulersinmarriageaspartofthe ChinesediplomaticpolicytotheTibetans.Thetwoprincesseswereknowntohavehadmuchto dowithintroducingChineseculturetotheTibetans.ManyTibetanstudentswerealsosentto studyatChangan,thecapitalofChinathen(Maetal.,1981:25859).TheTibetansalso overcametheUighursandtheTurksintheTarimBasinandotherneighboringnationalities.In 763A.D.,theycapturedChangan(FairbankandReischauer,1960:156,157,192).Duringthe periodfromthetenthtothetwelfthcentury,Buddhism,whichwasintroducedintoTibetfrom northwestIndiaintheeighthcentury,becamefusedwiththenativeTibetancultknownasBon, whichmademuchofmagicanddivination.TheresultwasthedevelopmentofLamaism,which eventuallypenetratedintovariousculturalaspectsoftheTibetans,andwhichinthethirteenth centuryspreadrapidlyintoMongoliaandalsoChina(FairbankandReischauer,1960:27778). ThehistoryoftheUighurscanbetracedbacktothethirdcenturyB.C.Theirancestorswere nomadicpeoplelivingsouthoftheBaikalLakeandnorthofmodernChina.Theycouldbe relatedtotheTatarsandtheTurks(Maetal.,1981:175).TheyhadcontactswithHanChinese, whentheHandynastysenttwoenvoystotheWestin139B.C.and115B.C.,respectively (FairbankandReischauer,1960:99).Intheeighthcentury,theyalliedwiththeTangdynasty againsttheTibetans.Inthemiddleoftheninthcentury,theyblendedwiththe 191

Tibetans,theKhitans,andtheMongolslivingintheTarimBasin(FairbankandReischauer, 1960:155,157,191).Inthetwelfthcentury,theywereconvertedtoIslam.BasedontheSogdian alphabet,whichhadcomeindirectlyfromSyriacandthusultimatelyfromtheancientPhoenician alphabet,theUighurscreatedthealphabeticUighurscript,whichlaterprovidedthebaseforthe Mongolianalphabet(FairbankandReischauer,1960:26465).Asnotedearlier,theManchushad derivedtheiralphabetfromtheMongolianalphabet.TheUighurs,theMongols,andtheManchus avoidedthedifficultiesencounteredbytheJapaneseandtheKoreansintheiradoptionofthe Chinesewritingsystem.Throughouthistory,theUighurshavebeenthemostinfluentialnationality inChineseTurkestan,today'sXinjiangautonomousregionofChina. Becauseofspaceconstraints,wecanonlygiveaverybriefhistoricalaccountofthecontactsamong thosenationalitiesthathaveexertedgreatinfluencesonothernationalitiesinculture,language,and religion.Forthepresentpurposes,itsufficestomakesomegeneralobservationswithregardto languagemaintenanceandlanguageshiftoftheabovementionednationalitiesfromahistorical perspective. First,itmustberecalledthatHanChinesehaveneverbeenapurerace.Theyhaveabsorbedblood frommanydifferentracialstocks,especiallyfromthenonChinesepeoplesfromthenorthandthe northwest.ItisnotdifficulttonoticethatnorthernChinesetodaylookdifferentfromsouthern Chinese.Forexample,thenorthernersareingeneraltallerandhavelighterskincolorthanthe southerners.Thenorthernersalsohavesharperfacialcontoursthanthesoutherners.Whilethe northernChineselookmoresimilartotheMongolsandtheKoreans,thesouthernChineselook moreliketheVietnameseandtheThais.ThisseemstocorrelatewithM.J.Hashimoto's(1976; forthcoming)observationthat,whereasMandarinChinesesharessomegrammaticalfeatureswith Altaiclanguages,southernChinesedialectssharefeatureswithThai.Inbothphysicaland grammaticalfeatures,thereexistsacontinuum,withthenorthernmostclosesttoAltaicandthe southernmosttoThai. Second,wehaveseenthatboththeHuisandtheManchushavelosttheirmothertongues.Despite theIslamicreligion,theHuishavenotbeenabletoretaintheirlanguages,whetherArabicor Persian.ThisisperhapsinpartbecausetheHuisdidnotspeakacommonlanguagetostartwith, andinpartbecausetheyhavethinlyspreadamongothernationalities.TheManchus,havingruled Chinaformorethantwohundredandfiftyyears,havelosttheirlanguage,customs,andindigenous shamanism(FairbankandReischauer,1960:364).TheyarenotunlikeothernonChinesepeoplesin historywhoruledChina,yetwereinthelongrunassimilatedintoChinesecultureandlanguage. TheMongolsalsoruledChinaforaboutonehundredyears.Yet,theyhavemaintainedtheir language.AtleastfourreasonsaccountforthedifferencebetweentheManchusandtheMongolsin languagemaintenance.First,theManchushadlong,closecontactswithHanChinesebeforethey ruledChina.ThiswasnotthecasewiththeMongols.Second,theMongolsdidnotruleChinaas longastheManchus 192

did.Moreimportantly,unliketheManchus,theydidnotestablishaChinesebureaucracyfor administrativepurposes.Third,whiletheManchuswereagriculturalpeopleliketheHanChinese, theMongolswerenomadicpeoplewhoresistedagriculturallivinginChina.Fourth,whileHan ChinesecontinuedtoflocktoManchuriatosettledownduringtheeighteenthandnineteenth centuries,fewHanChinesemigratedtoMongoliaforthepastoralliving.AstotheTibetansandthe Uighurs,theyneverruledChina.Geographically,theyhavebeenisolated,theTibetansintheTibet PlateauandtheUighursintheTarimBasin.Furthermore,theyhavetheirownreligionsandwritten languages.Similarly,theKoreansinManchuriahavebeengeographicallyisolatedandhavetheir ownwrittenlanguage.Inaddition,theyhavelivedintheborderadjacenttoKorea. THEPRESENTSITUATION Forgeographical,climatical,andhistoricalreasons,thenationalitiesinChinahavenotkeptthe samepaceinsocialandeconomicdevelopments.Throughouthistory,HanChinesehavebeenfar moreadvancedthanothernationalitiesintechnology,production,andpoliticoeconomic organizationaswellasintheartsandliterature.Theyhavedevelopedoneofthemostprofoundand influentialculturesinthehistoryoftheworld.Historyhaswitnessedthatnonationalitiescanrule ChinasuccessfullywithoutadoptingChineseculture.Indeed,nonChinesepeopleshavebeengiven notonlypoliticalbutalsoeconomicincentivestoadoptChineseculture.Inthecourseofhistory,the HuisandtheManchusandportionsofothernationalitieshavebeenassimilatedintoChinese culture.Asaconsequence,theyhavebeenabletoenjoythesamelivingstandardasHanChinese.In contrast,themajorityofTibetan,Mongol,Kazakh,Khalkas,Tajik,andYukuhaveremainedas pastoralpeoples.Dulong,Wa,andpartsofMiaoandYaohaveengagedinrelativelyprimitive agriculturalproduction.Onastilllowerlevel,nationalitiessuchasHezhe,Elunchun,Owenk,Jing, andothershavelivedonfishingorhunting.SincetheCommunistChinesecametopowerin1949, theproduction,technology,andlivingstandardsforthoseminoritieshavebeensignificantly improved.Insomeregions,theyhavecaughtupwiththoseofHanChinese. ThreetypesofsocioeconomicstructurecouldbefoundamongthenationalitiesinChinabeforethe Communistrevolutionin1949.Thefirsttyperepresentsatraditionalagriculturalsocietywith privateownershipofland.Bigandsmalllandlordsownedmostoftheland.Themajorityof peasantstilledthelandastenants.Oftenmorethannot,theywereexploitedandoppressedbythe landlords.Inconjunctionwithadministrativeofficials,thelandlordsvirtuallyruledthesociety. Sinceonlythesetwoclassesofpeoplecouldaffordeducation,theyformedthegentryclassfor China(Meskill,1973:12324).ThiswastypicalofHanChinesebeforetheCommunistrevolution. Tovariousdegreesandinsimilarmanner,morethanthirtynationalminoritiesalsodisplayedthis typeofsocialstructure.TheyincludedManchu,Hui,Zhuang,Uighur,Korean,Buyi,Tujia, 193

andDong.MostoftheseminoritieshavehadclosecontactswithHanChinese.Intermsoflanguage use,ManchuandHuihaveshiftedtoChinese,andalargenumberofthepopulationamongZhuang, Buyi,Tujia,andDongareabletouseChinese(Maetal.,1981). Thesecondtypeofsocioeconomicstructureinvolvedslavery.FortheTibetans,themasterswere aristocrats,bureaucrats,andLamaclergymenofthehighestranks.Theyownedlargetractsofland alongwiththeslavesorslavefamilieslivingontheland.Theslaveswereattachedtothelandand couldnotbefreed.Theywereallowedtohaveonlyasmallportionoflandtocultivatefortheirown living(Maetal.,1981:25776).InthecaseofDai,alloftheland,rivers,andforestsbelongedtothe highesttribalruler,whokeptaportionoflandforhimselfanddividedtherestamonghis subordinates.Theslavesworkedforthemasterswithoutanyrewards,butwereallowedtohavea smallportionoflandtofeedthemselves(Maetal.,1981:34143).Aslaverysystemalsoexisted amongsomeMongoltribeslivinginthepastoralareasofInnerMongolia.Theslaveswereforcedto raisecattleforthearistocratsandhighrankingIslamicpriests.AlthoughthemajorityofYipeople hadalreadyadvancedtothelandlordtenantsystem,aslaverysystemstillexistedformorethanone millionYibeforetheChineseCommunistscametopower.Thewholepopulationwasrankedinto fourclasses.BlackYi,whichconstitutedonly7percentofthepopulation,weremasters.Therest werethreeranksofslaves,withthelowestranksubjecttothecruelestformofslavery(Maetal., 1981:299300). Thethirdtypeofsocioeconomicstructurewastheprimitivecommunesystem.Dulong,Nu,Lisu, Jingpo,Wa,Bulang,Elunchun,Qwenk,andLiontheHainanIslandcouldbeconstruedashaving thisorganization.Todifferentdegrees,theydisplayedthecoexistenceofcommunityandprivate ownershipwithreferencetobothproductionanddistribution(Maetal.,1981:5). Today,allthreetypeshavebeenreplacedbytheChineseCommunistsystem.Therefore,obvious differencesineconomicsocialstructurecannolongerbefoundamongthenationalitiesinChina. ThegreateconomicdisparitiesbetweenHanChineseandotherminoritieshavealsodisappeared.At present,onlysmallinequalitiesexistbetweenurbanandruralliving,amongdifferentregionsowing togeographicalandclimaticalreasons,amongdifferentprofessions,andamongdifferentmodesof production,forexample,industrial,agricultural,andpastoral.WhiletheChineseCommunistshave strivenhardtoincreasetheproductionlevelofnationalminorities,itisperhapsgenerallytruethat theystilllagbehindHanChineseinlivingstandardasaresultofvariousgeographicaland climaticallimitations. BeforetheCommunistrevolution,somenationalminoritieslivedunderpoliticalsystemsdifferent fromtheHanChinesesystem,somewhatcorrespondingtotheirdifferencefromHanChinesein socioeconomicstructure.FortheTibetans,thepoliticalsystemwasinseparablefromtheLama Buddhists'organization.InInnerMongolia,whileprovincesandcountieshadbeensetupbythe NationalistChinesegovernmentbefore1949,thehereditarytribalaristocrats 194

werestillrulingmanygroupsofMongols.Withtheintricateslaverysystem,Yipeoplewere governedbymorethanonehundredmutuallyindependentfamilies.Thesesystemshavebeen replacedbytheChineseCommunistsystem.TheminoritiestodayarenotsodifferentfromHan Chinesewithregardtoeconomicaswellassociopoliticalstructures.Notonlyminoritiesaremore nearlyequaltoHanChinesethanbefore,butindividualsineachnationalityalsoenjoymore equalitythanbefore.Consideringallthediscrepanciesthatexistedamongallthenationalitiesand individuals,onecannotbutbedeeplyimpressedwiththetremendouschangestheChinese Communistshavebrought. Comparedwithsocial,economic,andpoliticalchanges,relativelylittlechangehasoccurredin differentformsofreligioninChina.BeforetheCommunistrevolution,whilealargenumberofHan ChinesewereBuddhistsandsomewereconvertedtoChristianity,thevastmajorityofHanChinese hadassumedConfucianethicsandbelievedinancestorworshipwithlocaldeities.Despiteits incompatibilitywiththeCommunistideology,religionhasbeentoleratedaslongasithasnotstood inthewayofsociopoliticalreforms.However,theLamagovernmentwasdissolvedafterthe Tibetans'rebellionin1959.DuringtheCulturalRevolution(196676),religiousgroupswere suppressedamongHanChinesemorethanamongminorities.Thecustomofworshipingancestors anddeities,includingConfuciushimself,hasfadedsignificantlysince1949.However,itisdifficult toassesstowhatextentHanChinesehavechangedtheirbeliefs,sinceConfucianismandancestor worshipembodydeepphilosophicalbeliefsratherthanrelyingonritualexpression.Recently, BuddhismandChristianityhavebeenrevivedamongHanChinese.Islamhasremainedas influentialasbeforeamongHui,Uighur,Kazakh,Khalkas,Tatar,Uzbek,Tajik,Dongxiang,Sala, andBaoan.LamaismisstillprevalentamongTibetans,Mongols,Tu,andYukupeople.Adifferent formofBuddhism,HinayanaortheLesserVehicle,iswidelyfollowedamongDai,Bulang, Benglong,andsomeportionoftheWapopulation.ChristianityisfollowedbyYi,aportionofMiao, andothersmallerminoritiesinthesouthwest.EasternOrthodoxChristianityisfollowedbythe RussiansandsomeoftheEwenkpeople.Variousprimitivereligionsandthepracticeofshamanism stillexistamongDulong,Nu,Wa,Jingpo,andElunchun(Maetal.,1981). TheChineseCommunistshaddevelopedacloserelationshipwithmanynationalminoritieseven beforetheycametopowerin1949.DuringtheirlongandhardstruggleagainsttheChinese Nationalists,theyoftenhadtoretreattoremoteareastolivewithandtoseeksupportfromnational minorities.Asearlyas1931,theCommunistpartyofChinaestablishedasetofpoliciesto encouragethedevelopmentoflanguageandcultureamongthenationalminorities(Lehmann, 1974:113).ShortlybeforetheestablishmentofthePeople'sRepublicofChina(PRC)in1949,the Communistparty,inconsultationwithrepresentativesfromvariousnationalminorities,formally announceditsbasicpoliciestowardnationalminorities.Thesepolicieswerelaterformalizedinthe 1954ConstitutionofthePRC(Maetal.,1981:1314).Theyhaveremainedintactinthelatest revision 195

oftheConstitution,whichstipulatesthatallnationalitiesinChinabetreatedequally,that autonomousadministrativedistrictsbesetupinareaswithaconcentrationofnationalminorities, thatallnationalminoritieshavetherighttomaintaintheirreligionsandcustomsandtouseand developtheirlanguages,andthatthegovernmentassistnationalminoritiestodeveloptheir 1Today,thePRChasfiveautonomousregions:InnerMongoliafor economiesandcultures. Mongols,TibetforTibetans,GuangxiforZhuang,NingxiaforHui,andXinjiangforUighur.They areequivalenttoHanChineseprovinces.Inaddition,therearetwentynineautonomousdistricts smallerthanregions,seventyautonomouscounties,andthreeautonomoustribes(Maetal., 1981:16). TheCentralInstituteofNationalities(ZhongyangMinzuXueyuan)wasestablishedinJune1951in Beijinginordertotraincadresfornationalminorities.Ninelocalinstitutesofnationalitieswere subsequentlyestablishedinthenorthwest,southwest,andsouth(Maetal.,1981:17).Dependingon thelocation,eachlocalinstituteplacesemphasisonsomeparticularminoritylanguagesand cultures.TheCentralInstituteofNationalitieshasalanguagedepartmentwhosemainfunctionhas beentotraintranslatorsandinterpretersforminoritylanguages.WhileHanChinesecadreslearn minoritylanguages,minoritycadreslearnChinese(Lehmann,1974:10913).Inrecentyears,the learningofminoritylanguagesonthepartofHanChinesecadreshasbeenmovedtolocalinstitutes sothatminoritylanguagescanbemoreeffectivelylearned.TheDepartmentofLanguagesatthe CentralInstituteofNationalitieshasthusconcentratedontheteachingofChinesetominority cadres. TheChineseAcademyofSocialSciencesalsohasadepartmentofminoritylanguages.Itfocuseson researchonminoritylanguagesandhasmaintainedclosetieswiththeCentralInstituteof Nationalities.Intheearly1950s,itdispatchedseveralteamsoffieldworkerstostudyminority languagesandheldextensivemeetingsandconferences.In1956,thetwoorganizationscooperated onanextensiveresearchprojectthatinvolvedmorethansevenhundredlinguistsdoingresearchon thirtythreeminoritylanguagesinsixteenseparateareas.Aftertheresearchwascompleted,they wentontohelpseveralminoritiesdesignnewalphabetsorreformexistingorthographies(Chang, 1967). Intheautonomousareas,thereligionsandcustomsofnationalminoritiesaretakeninto considerationforlegalandadministrativedecisions,andtheirlanguagesareusedinadministration, elections,publications,broadcasting,andlawcourts.Inallofthefiveautonomousregions,and perhapsinmanyofthesmallerautonomousunitsaswell,thelocalnationalminoritylanguageisthe mediumofinstructioninelementaryandmiddleschools.ThestudyofChinesebeginsinmiddle school(Lehmann,1974:11415).Chineseisusedasthemediumofinstructionincollegesand universities,whenaprofessorcannotspeakthelocalminoritylanguageorwhenthetextbooksare availableonlyinChinese.TheCentralBroadcastStationinBeijingbroadcastsinthemajornational minoritylanguages.Localstationsintheautonomousareasbroadcastprimarilyinlocalminority languages.However,inareaswithalargenumberofHanChinese,the 196

broadcastsareinChineseaswellasinlocalminoritylanguages.Forexample,inLhasa,thecapital ofTibet,bothTibetanandChineseareusedinbroadcasting.InXinjiang,whereabout40percentof thepopulationarenowHanChinese,broadcastsareinChinese,Uighur,Kazakh,andMongolian. TheNationalitiesPublishingHouseinBeijingpublishesbooksinfiveminoritylanguages: Mongolian,Uighur,Tibetan,Zhuang,andKorean.Localprintinghousesinmajorcitiessuchas Lhasa,Urumchi,Kukuhoto,andotherareaswithalargenumberofHanChineseintheautonomous regionsalsopublishbooks,newspapers,andmagazinesinlocalminoritylanguagesandinChinese( Lehmann,1974:114). ThelanguagepoliciesoftheChineseCommuniststowardnationalminoritieshavesoughtto eliminateHanChinesechauvinismandareinkeepingwiththeegalitarianismoftheChinese Communists'ideology.Thus,standardChineseisreferredtoas"Hanyu,"thelanguageofHan Chinese,ratherthanas"Guoyu,"thenationallanguage,asbytheChineseNationalists.Several citiesintheautonomousareashaveregainedtheiroriginalminoritynames.Forexample,Urumchi, thecapitalofXinjiang,isnowcalledWulumuqiaccordingtoUighurinsteadofDihua,thename givenbytheChineseNationalists,whichmeans"beassimilated"inChinese.Similarly,Kukuhoto, thecapitalofInnerMongolia,wascalledGuisui(meaning"beappeased")bytheNationalistsand hasbeenrenamedHuhehaote.Chinesenamesfornationalminoritieswhichareeitherderogatoryor condescendinghavealsobeenreplaced(Tai,1976). ApartfromtheChineseCommunists'ideology,theselanguagepoliciesalsoservepolitical purposes.NeverbeforehasChinabeensotightlyunifiedunderonesingleeffectivesocioeconomic system.TheunificationaswellastheverysecurityofChinadependslargelyonthecooperationand supportofmanynationalminoritieswholiveinthemilitarilycrucialborderareasadjacenttothe SovietUnion,India,andSoutheastAsia.Itisimperativefornationalminoritiestounderstandthe politicalandeconomicpoliciesoftheChineseCommunistparty.Agreatefforthasbeenmadeto translateworksoncommunismandgovernmentdocumentsintominoritylanguagestobepublished inlocalnewspapersortobebroadcastbylocalstations.Fornationalminoritiestounderstandthe party'spoliciesisobviouslymoreurgentthanforthemtounderstandtheChineselanguage.Itis generallytruethattheChineseCommunistsaremoreconcernedwiththesocioeconomic developmentofnationalminoritiesthantheiracceptanceoftheChinesecultureandlanguage. Besides,itisdoubtfulthattheyhaveeverhadenoughresourcestoconductlargescaleChinese languagetrainingprogramsamongallofthenationalminorities. AstudyofChina'slanguagepoliciesonbilingualismcannotbesufficientwithoutabriefdiscussion ofthepromotionofthesocalledPutonghua("commonlanguage")amongHanChinese,whospeak manydialects.AsthecommonlanguageofthePRC,Putonghuawasdefinedandendorsedatthe standardizationconferenceofOctober1955.ItspronunciationisbasedonthegeneralBeijing dialect,itsgrammaronnortherndialects,anditsvocabularyonmoderncolloquialliterature (Lehmann,1974:11).Inessence,itisacontinuationofGuanhua 197

("Mandarin"or"languageofofficials"),whichservedasalinguafrancainChinaforoverfive hundredyearsintheMingandQingdynasties,andGuoyu("nationallanguage"),whichwas promotedduringtheRepublicanera(191149)onMainlandChinaandwhichhasremainedthe standardlanguageonTaiwanundertheChineseNationalists.Althoughthethreetermsforthe standardvernacularbasedontheBeijingdialectreflectthreedifferentattitudestowardastandard vernacularforthisvastandpopulouscountry,thedesirabilityofhavingacommonspeechthatcan beunderstoodthroughoutthecountryhaslongbeenrecognized.Indynastictimes,itwassimplya mediumforofficialcommunication,andnoattemptwasmadetopopularizeitamongthepeople. DuringtheRepublic,whilethepopularizationofthe"nationallanguage"wassetupasagoal, politicalchaosandwarsprecludedeffectiveefforts. Inmanysenses,ChinawasreunifiedbytheChineseCommunistsin1949.TheCommunists' nationwidepromotionofPutonghuabeganin1955withtheConferenceontheStandardizationof theModernChineseSpokenLanguage.TheStateCouncilfollowedupin1956withadirectiveto popularizeitthroughoutthecountry.ItrequestedthatalltheschoolsofHanChineseusePutonghua asthemediumofinstructionbeginninginautumn1956.Itthuschangedthehithertocommon practiceofusingthelocaldialectasthemedium.Duringthenexttwoyears,workshopswereheldto trainprimary,secondary,andnormalschoollanguageteachersinthephoneticsofPutonghua.In 1958,ZhouEnlaiannouncedthatthepopularizationofPutonghuawasanimportantpoliticaland economictool,thePeople'sCongressapprovedtheuseofthePinyinsystemasaninvaluabletoolfor thespreadofPutonghua,andMaoZedongdeclaredthatallcadresmustlearnPutonghua (Lehmann,1974:49).Thecampaignseemedtohavegainedconsiderablemomentumbeforethe CulturalRevolutionstartedin1966.DuringtheCulturalRevolution,thecampaignwasneglected andinterrupted.Yet,ashundredsofthousandsofyoungstudentsferventlytraveledaroundthe countrytoadvocatetherevolutionandasthousandsuponthousandsofyoungandoldeducated citizensvolunteeredorwereassignedtosettleinruralareas,theycontributedgreatlytothe spreadingofPutonghua.ThecampaignwasresumedaftertheCulturalRevolution,thoughwithout theinitialvigorofthelate1950s. ThepolicytowardlocaldialectsinChinahasbeenthattheyareusefulandthatcadresshouldlearn tousethedialectoftheareawheretheywork(Lehmann,1974:17,50).Localtelevisionandradio stationsbroadcastinlocaldialects,inadditiontoPutonghua.Obviously,Chineseleadershave recognizedthatdialectscannotbeeliminatedbyadministrativeorderandtheywillnotdieoutfora longtime.Tothem,thepopularizationofPutonghuaismotivatedbynationalunityandneedfor communication,andnotbyanysuperiorityoverthedialects.Infact,manyofthenationalleaders comefromsouthernChinaandspeakPutonghuawithstrongregionalaccents.Ontheotherhand,it isnotclearwhethertheyhaverecognizedthepositivevaluesoflinguisticpluralismfroman educationalpointofview.Perhapstheyhaveaccepteddialectsonpracticalgroundsrather 198

thanbecauseoftheirappreciationoftheeducationalphilosophybehindbilingualism. ChinatreatsHanChinesedialectsandminorities'languagesdifferentlyinthreerespects.First, whereasPutonghuaisrequiredtobetaughtandusedinelementaryandsecondaryschools amongtheHanChinese,itistobetaughtonlyinresponsetothewishesofsomenational minorities.WhenHanChinesehavetoworkinminorityareas,theyarerequestedtolearnthe locallanguages.Second,whiletheChinesegovernmenthashelpedmanyminoritiesromanize theirlanguagesaccordingtothePinyinprinciplesemployedforPutonghua,ithasnotallowedthe romanizationoflocaldialectsofHanChinese.Third,minoritylanguageshavebeenrecognized onbothideologicalandpracticalgrounds;localdialectsareacceptedonlyasamatterof practicality.AlthoughtheultimategoalofthepopularizationofPutonghuainvolvesthe eliminationofHanChinesedialects,theideologyoftheChineseCommunistsprohibitsthe replacingofminoritylanguageswithPutonghua. CONCLUSIONS Constrainedbytheideologyofegalitarianismamongdifferentraces,theChineseCommunists haveattemptedtomaintainandtodeveloptheculturesandlanguagesofnationalminorities.On theotherhand,onthegroundsofnationalunityandtheneedforcommunication,theyhavemade effortstopopularizePutonghua,astandardizedMandarin,throughouttheentirecountry, especiallyamongHanChinese,Hui,Manchu,andsomeportionsoftheminoritypopulation whichhaveadoptedvariousChinesedialects.Thepolicyhasbeentoproceedgraduallythrough persuasionandencouragement,andnotforce(SeyboltandChiang,1979:25). ItisindeeddifficulttoassessindetailtheachievementofthepopularizationofPutonghuainthe pastthirtyyears.However,severalgeneralizationscanbemade.First,therearemoreminority peoplewhohavelearnedtospeakPutonghuathanHanChinesewhohavelearnedtospeak minoritylanguages.ThisgeneralizationalsoholdstrueforthebilingualismbetweenPutonghua andChinesedialects.JudgingfromChina'spoliciestowardbilingualism,itisnotunreasonableto attributetheasymmetrytotheveryfactthatagoodcommandofPutonghuadoesprovidemore politicalandeconomicalopportunities.Putonghua,asthecommonlanguageforChina,is analogoustoEnglishasaninternationallanguageofpoliticsandeconomics.Second, bilingualismbetweenPutonghuaandlocalminoritylanguagesorChinesedialectsismore commoninurbanareasthaninruralareas,becausethepopulationinurbanareasisingeneral moremixedthaninruralareasandthereisahigherconcentrationofgovernmentofficesand schoolsinurbanareasthaninruralareas.Third,forbothnativespeakersofminoritylanguages andChinesedialects,themorehighlyeducatedoneis,thebetterone'scommandofPutonghua. 199

ThefollowinggeneralizationsmaybemadewithregardtothebilingualismbetweenPutonghuaand Chinesedialectsonly.First,thepopularizationofPutonghuahasbeenmoresuccessfulinthenorth thaninthesouth.TheprimaryreasonisthatnortherndialectsandthestandardizedMandarinare mutuallyintelligible,whereassoutherndialectsandthestandardizedMandarinarenot.Asecondary reasoncanperhapsbeattributedtothegeologicalandhencepsychologicaldistancebetween southerndialectsandthestandardizedMandarin.Thismayexplainwhythepopularizationof PutonghuahasbeenmoresuccessfulinShanghaithaninGuangzhou.Second,youngergenerations withmoreyearsofschoolinginPutonghuahavebettercommandofPutonghuathantheirolder counterparts.Thus,thegenerationunderthirtyisbetterthanthegenerationofforty,whichinturnis betterthanthegenerationoffiftyyearsofage.Themajorityofthepopulationabovesixtyyearsold inthesouthdoesnotunderstandPutonghuaatall.Third,therearemanymorepeoplewhocan passivelyunderstandPutonghuathanpeoplewhocanactivelyspeakthelanguage.Especiallyin ruralareas,youthtendtoforgetPutonghuaaftertheyleaveschool.Thisisparticularlytrueinthe south(SeyboltandChiang,1979:2627,382). Inrecentyears,thenumberoftelevisionsinChinahasincreasedsignificantlytoaboutthirtyeight peronehundredhouseholds.Thenationhasalsomademanyeffortstoexpandeducationonall levels.Inaddition,amuchimprovedtransportationsystemhasbeenimplementedwithless restrictedtravelingpolicies.ItcanbeexpectedthatthepopularizationofPutonghuawillbe enhancedaccordingly.Nevertheless,withoutdoubtveryfewminoritylanguagesandChinese dialectswillbereplacedbyPutonghuaintheforseeablefuture.ThefutureshouldseeChinaasa morebalancedbilingualnation,withPutonghuaasalinguafrancathroughoutChina. NOTE 1. AccordingtoZhangJichuanandZhangLiansheng,researchfellowsoftheInstituteof NationalityStudiesoftheChineseAcademyofSocialSciences.Ihavealsobenefitedfrom discussionswiththemregardingbilingualismbetweenHanChineseandnationalminoritiesin China.Iamsolelyresponsibleforanypossibleerrors. BIBLIOGRAPHY ChangK.1967."NationalLanguages."InCurrentTrendsInLinguistics,ed.T.A.Sebeok.Vol.2. TheHagueandParis:Mouton,pp.15576. DeFrancisJ.1976.BeginningChinese.NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress. EgerodS.1967."Dialectology."InCurrentTrendsInLinguistics,ed.T.A.Sebeok.Vol.2.The HagueandParis:Mouton,pp.91129. FairbankJ.K.,andE.O.Reischauer.1960.EastAsia:TheGreatTradition.Boston:Houghton MifflinCo. FitzgeraldC.P.1961.China:AShortCulturalHistory.NewYork:PraegerPublishers. GuanD.G.1971."Manzuderuguanyuhanhua"[TheManchuconquestofChinaand 200

theirsinicization].BulletinoftheInstituteofHistoryandPhilosophy,AcademicSinica,the RepublicofChina,43:44588. HashimotoM.J.1976."LanguageDiffusionontheAsianContinent:ProblemsofTypological DiversityinSinoTibetan."ComputationalAnalysesofAsianandAfricanLanguages,3:4965. .Forthcoming."TheAltaicizationofNorthernChinese."InNicholasC.BodmanFestschrift, ed.W.J.McCoyandT.Light.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress. KratochvilP.1970.TheChineseLanguageToday.London:HutchinsonUniversityLibrary. LehmannW.P.1974.LanguageandLinguisticsinthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Austinand London:UniversityofTexasPress. LiF.K.1973."LanguagesandDialectsofChina."JournalofChineseLinguistics1:113. MaY.,etal.1981.Zhongguoshaoshuminzu[NationalminoritiesinChina].Beijing:People's Publisher. MeskillJ.1973.AnIntroductiontoChineseCivilization.Lexington,Mass.:D.C.HeathandCo. PaulstonC.B.1985.LinguisticsConsequencesofEthnicityandNationalisminMultilingual Settings.UniversityofPittsburgh. SeyboltP.J.,andG.K.Chiang.1979.LanguageReforminChina.NewYork:Sharpe,Inc. SternH.H.,etal.1976.ThreeApproachestoTeachingFrench.Toronto:OntarioMinistryof Education. TaiJ.1976.LexicalChangesinModernStandardChineseinthePeople'sRepublicofChina Since1949.Washington,D.C.:U.S.InformationAgency. 201

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 202

10CarolMyersScotton PATTERNSOFBILINGUALISMINEASTAFRICA(UGANDA,KENYA,AND TANZANIA) LINGUISTICGROUPINGS ItslargenumberoflanguagesisoneofthemostdistinctivefeaturesofsubSaharanAfrica.Since thereisnogenerallyacceptedmethodfordistinguishingbetweendialectandlanguage,the precisenumberofAfricanlanguagescannotbestated.Evenbyaconservativeestimate,however, thenumberofdistinctlanguagesiswellovereighthundred(Greenberg,1971a:126).East 1Thisthreenationarea Africaalone,thesubjectofthischapter,containsabout175languages. (Uganda,Kenya,andTanzania)isespeciallydiverselinguistically,withallfourofthe indigenousAfricanlanguagefamiliesrepresentedinTanzania(theonlyAfricancountrywith thatdistinction),threefamiliesinKenya,andtwoinUganda.AsisthecaseelsewhereinAfrica, mostEastAfricanlanguageshavesmallnumbersofspeakers,andtheirknowledgeanduseare largelysynonymouswithspecificethnicgroupmembership.OnlyahandfulofEastAfrican languageshavemorethanamillionspeakers,andwhiletheoverwhelmingmajorityofEast Africansspeakmorethanonelanguage,thesamesecondlanguagesarenotregularlylearnedby differentspeakerssinceneighboringlanguagesdiffer.Theoutstandingexceptiontothis statementisthelearningofanethnicallyneutrallinguafranca.Swahiliiswidelyspokenbyall groupsinallpartsofEastAfricaandbeyondasalinguafranca.Englishisalsoalinguafranca oftenknownbytheeducated. RelativetothediversityfoundelsewhereontheAfricancontinent,EastAfricashowsenough culturalandlinguisticsimilaritiestoformasingle,naturalnation,haditnotbeenforthefactthat colonialismdividedtheareaintothreenations.Tanzania,Kenya,andUgandacontainbasically thesameindigenousethnicgroupswithsimilartraditions,andtheyhaveadaptedinsimilarways toexternal 203

influences:notably,allthreearestillveryruralwithfewrealtownsandfewercities;subsistence agriculturepredominates;Christianityhasmanyfollowers,butIslamisalsoanimportantinfluence onthecoast. ThethreenationsofEastAfricaalsogrouptogetherlinguisticallyassomethingofatransitionzone betweentheBantuspeakingareaextendingfromCamerooninthewesttothetipofSouthern Africa,thenortheastinwhichSemiticandCushiticlanguagesdominate,andCentralAfricajust belowtheSaharawhereSudanic(NiloSaharan)languagesarefound.Allthreeofthesegroupsare presentinEastAfrica.But,forexample,tothesouthofTanzania,insuchnationsasMozambique andMalawi,theonlyindigenouslanguagesarefromtheBantugroup. WithintheEastAfricandiversity,Bantulanguagesareprominent.Thisisnosurprisesincethe BantugroupisthelargestandmostwidespreadinAfricaasawhole;mostscholarsestimatethat thereareatleastfivehundreddifferentBantulanguages.TheBantugroupislessdistinctive geneticallythannumerically;theselanguagessimplyconstituteonesmallsubgroupofthelargest familyinAfrica,NigerKordofanian,showingclosestaffiliation(althoughdistant)withcoastalWest Africanlanguages. RelativelycloselyrelatedBantulanguagesarespokenbymorethantwothirdsoftheEastAfrican population.Swahili,widelyknownasasecondlanguageandtheofficiallanguageofTanzania,is alsoaBantulanguage.SwahiliisthenationallanguageofbothKenyaandUganda,butEnglishis theofficiallanguagethere. LanguagegroupsingeneralarelargerinKenyaandUgandathantheyareinTanzania.Thus,thereis anapproximatetotalofthirtylanguagesinUganda(Ladefoged,Glick,andCriper,1971:83)and twelveoftheseareBantu.InKenya,thereareaboutfifteenBantulanguagesoutofanapproximate totalofthirtyfour(Whiteley,1974a:27).EstimatesonthenumberofTanzanianBantulanguages fluctuate,andnorecentcensusincludesdataonmothertongue.Itisgenerallyagreed,however,that thereareaboutonehundredandtwentydifferentBantuones.Polom(1980a:35)commentson theuncertaintyastotheexactnumber. InbothKenyaandUganda,Bantulanguagesrepresentabout66percentofthepopulation,butin Tanzaniatheyconstituteover95percent.InUganda,aBantulanguage,Luganda,hasmorenative speakersthananyotherlanguage,representingabout16percentofthepopulation.Itisalso somethingofalinguafrancathere.InKenya,Kikuyuhasmorenativespeakersthananyother language,withmorethan2millionspeakers;otherBantulanguages,Luyia(Luhya)andKamba, eachhavewelloverImillionnativespeakers.AlthoughSukumainTanzaniaisaBantulanguage withoveramillionspeakers,mostotherBantulanguagestherehavesmallnumbersofspeakers. RecentstudiesofEastAfricanBantulanguageclassificationincludeGuthrie(196771),Heine (1973),Henrici(1973),Mhlig(1980),NurseandPhilippson(1980),andHinnebusch,Nurse,and 2 Mould(1981). 204

AlthoughBantuspeakerspredominateinUgandaandKenya,moreactualphysicalterritoryis coveredbynonBantugroups.ThenorthernhalfofUgandaisnonBantu,asarethenorthernhalfof Kenyaandsomelargecentralregions.ThesenonBantugroupsaremostprominentlyspeakersof Niloticlanguages,classifiedinthreedistantlyrelatedgroupsintheSudanicfamily(Greenberg, 1963:85148).WesternNiloticlanguagesextendinamigrationcorridorfromSudaninthenorthto thenorthwesterncornerofTanzaniainthesouth.AcholiandLangoarethemajorrepresentativesin Uganda,andLuoistheonlyWesternNiloticlanguagefoundinKenyaandTanzania.Luoisamajor languageinKenya,withoveramillionspeakers.Itshometerritoryisinthefarwestontheshoresof LakeVictoria(includingthecityofKisumu).ButLuos,likemanyotherethnicgroupsinEast Africa,arefoundfarfromtheirhomeswheretheymigrateforsalariedpositions.Luoextendsacross theborderfromtheKenyaLuohomeareaintoTanzania,skippingoverseveralKenyanBantu groups. EasternNiloticisnotaverypopulousgroupasawhole,butitincludesTeso,oneofthemajor languagesofUganda.TesoisspokenincentralandeasternUgandaaswellasinneighboringareas ofKenya.KarimonjongTurkanaisspokeninthenorthernborderareasofKenyaandUganda.The Maasai,awellknownpastoralgroup,alsospeakanEasternNiloticlanguage.Theyarefoundin centralareassharedbyKenyaandTanzania.Samburu(Sampur),spokenmainlyinnorthcentral Kenya,isrelatedtoMaasai. SouthernNiloticlanguagesarefoundmainlyinKenya,althoughthereareseveralminoronesin Tanzania.TheKalenjingroupinKenyaconsistsofsixrelatedlanguages,withmorethanamillion speakersintotal.KipsigisandNandiarethelargest.SpeakersliveinwestcentralKenyaforthemost part. TheCentralSudaniclanguagesinnorthwesternUgandaareclassifiedinthesamefamilywith Niloticlanguages,butareveryremotelyrelatedtothem.LugbaraandMadiarethemain representativesinUganda,withtheirclosestrelativesacrosstheborderinSudan. Kenya'snortheasternareasarelargelyEasternCushiticspeaking.Somaliisthemainlanguageof thenortheasternprovince,whichbordersonSomalia,wherealmosttheentirepopulationspeaks dialectsofSomali.AnotherCushiticlanguageisOromo,amajorlanguageinEthiopia,whichis spokeninadjoiningareasofKenyaaswell. Tanzania,inadditiontohavingBantulanguages(NigerCongosubfamilyintheNigerKordofanian family)andNiloticlanguages(SudanicorNiloSaharanfamily),alsohasapocketofSouthern CushiticspeakersofIraqwandseveralminorlanguages(CushiticbranchofAfroAsiaticfamily), andtwoclicklanguages,SandaweandHadza(Khoisanfamily). ForanoverviewonthegeneticclassificationofnonBantulanguagesinKenya,seeHeine(1980b and1980c).ForadiscussionoftheNiloticlanguagesofTanzania,seeEhret(1980).Zaborski (1976)offersanoverviewonCushiticlanguages. Asisthecaseelsewhereintheworld,inanumberofcaseswhatarecalled 205

separatelanguagesinEastAfricacouldbecalleddialectsofthesamelanguage,ifthecriterionof mutualintelligibilitywereused.Insomecases,theoppositeistrue;forexample,notallthedialects ofChaga,aBantulanguageofnorthernTanzania,aremutuallyintelligible(Polom,1980a:3).In addition,thereareseveralinstancesinEastAfricaofastandardizedor"unionversion"being producedtostandforanumberofrelatedvarieties.Thus,LuyiainwesternKenyaisreallyonlya 3 writtenversiontorepresenteighteencloselyrelatedspokenvarieties. TherearealsoanumberofAsiansinEastAfrica,especiallyinKenyabutalsoinTanzania. (GeneralIdiAmin'spoliciesinthe1970smeantanalmosttotalexodusoftheAsianpopulation fromUganda.)ManyAsianscomefromfamilieswhohavebeeninEastAfricaforseventyyearsor more;twothirdsoftheAsiansinKenyawerebornthere(Neale,1974:69).Butcitizensareasmall minority,atleastinKenya,andfurtherreductionsintheAsianpopulationareexpected.The estimatedAsianpopulationinKenyaintheearly1970swasonehundredandseventyfourthousand (Bujra,1974:263).Accordingtothe1967census,therewereeightyfivethousandAsiansin Tanzania(Polom,1980c:135).TheyspeakaboutfivedifferentIndianlanguages,allofthemIndo Aryan.TheseincludeKachi(adialectofSindhi),Konkani,Gujarati,Punjabi,andUrdu.Goansare oftennativespeakersofEnglish.AsiansinbusinessalmostcertainlyspeakSwahiliasasecond language;someknowotherAfricanlanguages,andmanyspeakEnglish. CHOOSINGANOFFICIALLANGUAGE Giventhelinguisticdiversityoutlinedabove,choosinganofficiallanguagewouldnotbeeasyfor EastAfricannations.AsinmostofAfrica,innocountryisonelanguagenumericallydominant. Choosingasofficialthelanguageofoneofseveralcompetingmiddlesizedgroupsisan unacceptablesolutionbecauseoftheclearadvantagesaccruingtothenativespeakersofthat languagerelativetothoseforpersonswhomustlearnitasasecondlanguage.Therefore,makingan ethnicallyneutrallanguagetheofficialonehasseemedthemostfeasiblesolution. TanzaniawasabletochooseSwahiliforthisrolebecause,althoughanindigenouslanguage,Swahili wasnotassociatedwithanumericallydominantorpoliticallypowerfulgroupofnativespeakers. (Swahilihadfewerthantwelvethousandnativespeakersonthemainland,accordingtothe1957 census[Molnos,1969:48];inaddition,ofcourse,thetotalpopulationofsuchoffshoreislandsas ZanzibarandPembawouldbeSwahilispeakers.)Thus,thesizeofthegroupofthosewhogainedby thismove(mothertonguespeakers)wasnotlargeenoughtothreatenothergroups.Furthermore, sinceTanzaniaisanationofmanysmalllanguagegroups,nosinglegroupwaslarge(orpowerful) enoughtodisputeSwahili'sclaimasthemostobviousindigenouscandidate.Mostimportant, however,weretwointerrelatedfactors:therewasatraditionofatleastacentury 206

ofusingSwahiliasthemainindigenouslinguafrancaacrosstheentirecountry,andthistradition had"bleached"Swahiliofmuchofitsethnicity,makingitaneutralchoice. Attheoutsetofthenineteenthcentury,Swahiliwasprobablystilllargelyacoastallanguage. "Swahili"isderivedfromthepluralformsawahilofArabicsahil("coast")andoriginallyreferredto thelanguageusedinthecoastaltradebetweentheArabsandlocalpopulationsinprecolonialtimes (Polom,1980b:79).Partlybecauseofitshistoryasacontactlanguage,therehasbeenmuch speculationaboutitsorigin.Manyhaveassumeditisacreolizedpidgin.Infact,thereisstrong evidenceagainstthisview.T.J.Hinnebusch(1976)presentsdetailedphonologicalcomparisonsto showthatSwahiliiscloselyrelatedtootherKenyancoastallanguages,suchasPokomoand Mijikenda,andthattheyshowtheregularsoundcorrespondencesconstitutinganylinguistic subgroup.ThisplacesSwahiliasoneofthemostnorthernoftheNortheastBantugroup(Nurseand Philippson,1980:46).Studiessuchastheseandthefactthat,inspiteofitsArabicloanwords, SwahilishowslittleArabicstructuralinfluencepointtotheinevitableconclusionthatSwahiliis simplyacoordinatememberofthegreatergroupingofBantulanguages.True,itisdifferentfrom itsclosestrelativesinshowingsomestructuraldivergences(lossoftone,forexample),butthisis becauseofitssocialhistory,notitsorigin.Presentevidenceindicates,therefore,thatSwahili becamedifferentiatedfromitscognatevarietiesandaroseasadistinctlanguagealongtheKenya coast;thenitspreadmainlysouthwardsalongthecoastandtotheoffshoreislands,suchas Zanzibar.ItseemslikelythatSwahiliwasacoastallanguagebeforethetenthcentury(Whiteley, 1969:31;Hinnebusch,1979:259).SeeWhiteley(1969)orPolom(1980b)formorehistorical details. Swahilinativedialectstodayformachainofmutuallyintelligiblevarietiesthatcanbedividedinto threeclusters.TheNorthernclusteriscenteredaroundLamuIslandonthenorthernKenyacoast (butalsoextendsjustacrosstheSomaliborder).TheCentraldialectsaremainlythosespokenonthe IslandofPembaandneighboringmainlandTanzanianareas.TheSouthernclusterincludes Kiunguja,thedialectofZanzibartown,whichbecamethebasisforStandardSwahiliundercolonial rule.AsubgroupwithintheSoutherncluster(butfoundgeographicallynorthoftherestofthe cluster)includesKimvita,thedialectofMombasa. DiversecircumstancescreatedsuccessiveneedsforalinguafrancaintheEastAfricaninterior,and Swahilifortuitouslywasonhandtomeettheseneeds.First,theArabtraderswhoorganizedtrading caravanstotheinteriorfromZanzibarandcoastalpointsneededameansofcommunicatingwith theindigenouspeoples.Thereisnodirectevidenceregardinglanguageusebeforethe1840s,but presumablythesetradersspokeSwahiliastheirownfirstlanguage,oratleastknewit,andit becamethemediumoftrade.Second,themissionarieswhoarrivedonthecoastalsceneinthemid andlatenineteenthcenturyalsoneededalinguafranca.Sincetheysetupinitialoperationswhere Swahiliwasanativelanguage, 207

sinceitwasalreadyinplaceasalinguafranca,andsinceithadawrittenliterature(inArabic script),itisnotsurprisingthatthemissionariesconsideredSwahiliworthyoftheirlinguistic energies.SeveralgrammarsofSwahiliweresoonproduced,thefirstin1850.This,inturn, enhancedSwahilievenmoreasalinguafranca.Third,thecolonialsalsoneededalinguafranca togovern.WhentheGermansarrivedtocolonizeTanganyika(nowTanzania,includingZanzibar aswellasthemainlandterritory),theyenvisionedtheareaasaprofitablecolonyandtherefore wantedliterateAfricans,notexpensiveexpatriates,fillingatleastminorcivilservicepositions. TheystartedwithSwahilispeakingpersonnelfromZanzibar,foundedschoolsthattaught Swahili,andrequiredthemissionariestoproduceSwahilispeakinggraduates.Intheir administrationofEastAfrica,theBritish(firstinUgandaandKenyaandthenalsoinTanganyika afterWorldWarI)alsowantedtouselocalresourcesinthecivilserviceandthereforewelcomed theideaofalowerlevelSwahilispeakingcadre.Underthem,Englishdidbecomethelanguage ofpostprimaryeducationandofhigheradministration,buttheyembracedSwahiliasageneral linguafranca.ManyGermanandBritishcivilservants,aswellassettlers,alsolearnedthe language,althoughsometimesproducingasomewhatpidginizedversion.Finally,especiallyin TanganyikaandtoanextentinKenya,whennationalistssoughttounifythepopulationinthe pushforindependenceafterWorldWarII,Swahiliwasthenaturalchoiceasthevehicleof mobilization.(SeeWhiteley,1969,foradetailedhistory.) TheriseofSwahiliasthemaincontactlanguageinEastAfricaandneighboringareasisan excellentexampleofJ.H.Greenberg'sobservationthatthespreadofalinguafrancatakesona lifeofitsown.Havingonlyasinglelinguafrancainanareabecomesthedominantsolution,not becauseanyoneplansitthatway,butbecause"onceitbecomesatallwidespread,ithasan advantageoverotherpossiblelinguafrancassothatitsexpansioncontinues"(1971b:201). ExceptinpartsofUganda,whereLugandaremainsalaggingbutdoggedcompetitor,Swahilihas unquestionedstatusinallofEastAfricaastheexpectedmediumofinterethniccommunication inanAfricanlanguage.Indeed,itsdomainincludeslargeareasinneighboringcountriesonall sidesaswell.ItisasignificantlinguafrancaasfarnorthasJubainsouthernSudan,anditmay serveasacontactlanguageasfarsouthasnorthernZambia.IneasternZaire,itevenhasofficial 4 statusasaregionallanguageusedasamediumintheearlyprimarygrades. WhileprogrammedchangemakingSwahilitheofficiallanguageandpromotingitsdominance hasmarkedpostindependencedevelopmentsinTanzania,gradualevolutionandmaintenanceof thestatusquohavecharacterizedthisperiodinKenyaandUganda.Thatis,littlehasbeendone systematicallyinKenyaandUgandatochangethearrangementsthatwereinplaceat independenceinthe1960s.OnlyinTanzaniacouldoneusetheterm"languageengineering." Thus,todayEnglishremainstheofficiallanguageofbothKenyaandUganda.Inaddition,a numberofvernacularshavesomeofficialstatus,mainlyasmediainthelowerschoolgrades. Thereisalsolimitedbroadcastinginalonglistofvernacularsonthestateownedradiosystems. Theonlyrealchangeisthatboth 208

nationshavenamedSwahilithenationallanguage.Thisstatusentailsnoexactrole,although Swahilienjoysmanymorepublic"national"usesinKenyathaninUganda. OnlyinTanzaniaisSwahiliparamount,whereitwasmadeboththeofficialandnational languagein1967,severalyearsafterindependence.Englishisacompulsorysubjectinprimary schoolsandremainsthemediumformostsecondaryschoolsanduniversitysubjects.Otherwise, Swahiliistheonlylanguagewithanyofficialstatus,withpoliciestospreaditsuseandthereby decreasethedomainofotherlanguages.ThereisaNationalSwahiliCounciltopromotethe language,andtheuniversityhasbothanInstituteofSwahiliResearchandaDepartmentof Swahili. TanzaniabelievesthatitschoiceofSwahiliisnecessarywithinitsschemeofdevelopment.To promotesocialism,TanzaniaistryingtouseSwahiliasalevelinglanguage.Sinceallpublic primaryschoolingisinSwahili,intheoryalllearnSwahiliandentertheeconomicmarketplace equallyprepared(Scotton,1978:729).Inpractice,however,Englishisstillaqualificationfor betterpayingjobs;therefore,secondaryschoolgraduates,especiallythoseattendingoneof severalprivateprimaryschools,haveaheadstart.Itisafact,however,thatallSwahilispeakers haveaccesstopoliticaloffice.TanzaniaisalsousingSwahilitoachievenationalintegration, promotingasenseofunityunderasingletransethnicsymbol. Incontrast,inUgandaandKenyaEnglishhasbeenthesolutiontotheproblemoffindingan ethnicallyneutralofficiallanguage.Englishremainsinplaceeventhoughitstillevokesimages ofthemasterservantrelationshipcharacterizingcolonialrule:thosewhodonotknowEnglish complaintheyarerelegatedtotheservantrole,andevenmanywhoknowitclaimtheirnations willbecoloniesoftheWestaslongasEnglishisgivenhighstatus.Themostimportantproblem concernsprovisionstospreadEnglish,sincesocioeconomicopportunitiestypicallyaretiedto knowingtheofficiallanguageinanynation.AdequateteachersorteachingmaterialsinEnglish arenotequallyavailableacrossthenation,andtherearenoarrangementstospreadthelanguage tothenonschoolagepopulation.Thus,inbothnations,theofficiallanguageisstillthelanguage onlyoftheelite,accessibleonlytothosewithspecialorhighereducation.Inruralareas,perhaps only20percentorlessknowEnglish,whileincitiestheproportionmayriseto40percent.In suchasituation,theresultisthattheofficiallanguagedoesnotpromoteasenseofnationalunity. Furthermore,itstratifiesratherthanintegratesthepopulationinasocioeconomicsense (Scotton,1982b). Insuchasituation,whataboutanofficialroleforSwahili?AttitudestowardSwahilihavealways beenvolatileandcomplexinKenya.AlthoughitisthenativelanguagealongKenya'scoast, SwahilifirstreachedupcountryKenyaviathecaravanroutesfromZanzibarthrough Tanganyika.(Fiercegroups,suchastheMaasai,deterredtheideaofroutesfromMombasa.)It wastheKiungujadialectofZanzibarthatthecolonialsacceptedasthebasisforStandardSwahili inthelate1920s,notMombasa'sKimvitadialect.(SeeWhiteley,1969:7995 209

forafulldiscussionoftherationaleforthischoice.)ThiswastheSwahililearnedupcountryasit wasspreadviagovernmentnotices,schooltexts,andotherofficialchannels. Second,manyupcountryKenyansassociateSwahiliwithaMuslimcoastalculturethatisvery differentfromtheirownindigenousorcontemporarytraditionsorreligiouspreferences.While todaymanyoftheadvocatesforawiderroleforSwahilidocomefromupcountrygroups,primary 5Accordingtothe1969census,therewerenomore supportersaretypicallycoastalnativespeakers. thantenthousandnativespeakersofSwahiliinKenya.Themuchmorenumerousandpolitically powerfulupcountryKenyansmayseethesesupportersasespousingavarietyofSwahiliwhich theydonotspeakandanincreasingroleforaculturenottheirown.Inaddition,thoseinhigh positionmayseeSwahiliadvocatesaspoliticalcompetitorswhowouldbenefitfromachangein Swahili'sstatus,whiletheythemselveshaveestablishedandmaintainedtheirpositionthroughthe mediumofEnglish. Third,manyupcountryKenyansseeSwahiliasasecondclasslanguage.Thisimageispartlya resultofcoloniallanguagepolicies.ProvisionforSwahili(butnotEnglish)inAfricaneducation wasseenasameansto"keepAfricansintheirplace."ThefactthatSwahilitraditionallywas learnedinformally(thisalsoholdstoday)ratherthannecessarilythroughschoolingmeansthat knowledgeofSwahiliisnotasymbolofeducation(Scotton,1977). Finally,eventhoughSwahiliisusedforsomeinterethniccommunicationbyallsocioeconomic levels,thefactthatitisthemaininterethnicvehicleoftheuneducatedinlowstatusjobshasledto itsprimaryassociationwithsuchspeakers. Atthesametime,Swahilihasunquestionedandgrowingpreeminenceasthelanguageofurban life.Itsroleinpoliticsisalsoimportant.Thisisrelatedtoitsimageasthelanguageofthemasses andtothefactthatitisverywidelyknown,attributesthatEnglishcannotclaim.AsM.H. Abdulaziz(1982:116)notes,"AleaderwhocannotspeakSwahiliisunlikelytogetsupportfrom membersoftheirlanguagegroups....Thetremendouspotentialofthislanguageasarallyingpoint fornationalaspirationsandidentitycannotbeoveremphasizedinasituationwiththepotentialof tribalconflicts." LargelybecauseofambivalenceregardingSwahili'srole,policiestowardlanguageinParliament andineducationhavechangedseveraltimesinKenya.Whenitbecameindependentin1964,its ConstitutionspecifiedabilitytoreadEnglishasaqualificationforstandingforelectionto Parliament.In1974,however,thenPresidentJomoKenyattaannouncedthatSwahiliwouldbethe solelanguageofparliamentarydebate(althoughalllawswouldstillbewritteninEnglish).This decisionwasrescindedin1978whenbothEnglishandSwahiliweredeclaredpossiblelanguagesof parliamentarydebate. ThevernacularsandSwahilihaveviedasmediaofinstructioninKenya'sprimaryschoolssince earlycolonialtimes,withEnglishalsoacontenderfromthe1960s.(Englishhasalwaysbeenthe mediumofpostprimaryschool,but 210

suchfacilitieswereverylimitedundercolonialrule.)Africansthemselveswereattimessuspicious ofeducationofferedtotheminSwahili.Theysawthemselvesasbeingeducatedonlytobecome moreusefultoEuropeansastheiremployers.Inaddition,somemissionariesviewededucationin Swahiliwithaversionsincetheybelievedachildshouldbetaughtfirstinhisorherownlanguage andthatthevernacularwasthenecessarymediumforinnerreligiousconversion.Colonial administratorswereoftwominds:sometimestheysawSwahiliastheefficientanswertothechoice ofalanguageforeducation,sincepreparingmaterialsineventhemainvernacularswasan unrealisticsolution;othertimestheysawachild'sfirstlanguageasthemosteffectivemediumof instruction.(SeeGorman,1974a,foradetailedoverviewoflanguagepolicyinKenyaneducation.) Roughlyspeaking,thevernacularsweregivenpriorityintheprimaryschoolsuntil1935,andthen Swahiliwasinfavorupto1950.Inthe1950s,therewasanotherswingbacktothevernaculars. Finallyinthe1960s,Englishwasbecomingthepopularchoiceasamediumrightfromprimaryone, butwithSwahiligraduallygainingfavoragain,butonlyasasubject. Today,asnotedabove,officialKenyanpolicysanctionsthevernacularsonceagainasmedia,with bothSwahiliandEnglishassubjects,butwithonlyEnglishtakingoverasamediuminprimary four.ThefactthatSwahiliwasjustmadeacompulsorysubjectontheprimaryschoolleaving examinationshouldmeanitsimportanceinthecurriculumwillgrow.Englishisthemediumforall highereducation,althoughSwahiliisanalternativesubjecttoFrenchinsecondaryschoolsandis emphasizedinteachertraininginstitutions.ItisalsoapossiblemajorsubjectatKenya'stwo universities.Thereareabouteighteenofficialschoolvernaculars,withSwahilioneofthemin coastalareas.ApartiallistingincludesKikuyu,Kamba,Meru,Embu,Pokomo,Taita,Mijikenda, Luyia,Luo,Kalenjin,Maasai,Samburu,Teso,andSomali. Thepresentpolicytousevernacularsasamediuminthefirstthreeyearsofprimaryschoolis highlyflexible(Sedlak,1983).Headmastersandteachersseemtohaveagreatdealoflatitudein selectingapolicywhichtheyfeelwillproducethemosteffectiveeducationfortheirstudents.Ifa schoolservesalinguisticallymixedpopulation,thesolutionismostoftenSwahiliasamedium. Thisisnotonlythecaseinurbanareas,butalsoalongethnicgroupboundaries.ButinNairobi schoolshighupthesocioeconomicladder,forexample,thesolemediumwillbeEnglish.Thisis alsothecaseinsomeruralschools,withthevernacularpossiblybeingusedonlyforexplanations. ThereasonisthateducatorsfeelthemoreEnglishthestudentsareexposedto,thebetter,sincethe primaryschoolleavingexaminationisinEnglish. Fairlycompletesetsofmaterialsareavailableinmostofthedesignatedschoolvernaculars,with mostworkcompletedforthelanguageswiththelargestnumberofspeakers.Still,thesebooksare notalwaysused.Forexample,itispossiblethatsomeofthebetterequippedschoolswillhaveafull rangeofEnglishlanguagematerials,whilethoseinthevernacularwillbefoundwanting.Thereason isthattheheadmasterateachschoolhasonlyacertainamountofmoney 211

availableeachyearandmoneytendstobespentmoreonEnglishlanguagetextsthanonvernacular materials. AnexperimentalprojecttoteachEnglishviaradiolessons(incorporatedbythelocalteacherintoa lessonplan)beganin1982(underUSAIDauspicesandpartofalargerWorldBankfinanced program). EvenmorethaninKenya,historicaldevelopmentsandlinguisticgroupingsinUgandamandatedthe choiceofEnglishasanofficiallanguage.TheassociationofeducationandhighstatuswithEnglish, disapprovalofSwahiliasaforeign,nonChristianlanguageoftheuneducated,andstrongtiesto one'sownvernaculararethethreadswhichhistoryprovidedasabasisforaUgandanlanguage policy.Sincenoindigenouslanguagehadasufficientpowerbasetobeselectedoverothersat independencein1962,EnglishbecamethesoleofficiallanguageofUganda.Swahilihadnostatus, andsixvernacularsweredesignatedasregionalmediaintheschools,withEnglishgraduallytaking overbyprimaryfour.Whilethe1970sunderGeneralIdiAminincludedthedesignationofSwahili asthenationallanguageaswellasmanycontactswithSwahilispeakingTanzaniansafterthewar resultinginAmin'soverthrow,officialpolicyhasnotchanged.PracticefavorsEnglishmoreand moreratherthanenhancingSwahili'sstatus. SwahiliwasalsospreadtoUgandainthewaythatitreachedupcountryKenya,bytradersin precolonialtimesfromtheTanganyikacoast.Colonialadministratorsalsousedit,buttoalesser degreethaninTanganyikaorKenya.Whileitwasobviouslyusefulasaneededlinguafranca, SwahiliwasneverwellreceivedbythoseinpowerinUganda.Missionarieshadmuchinfluence, andtheygenerallyfavoredusinglocalvernaculars,orsometimesLuganda.Inaddition,itwasfeared thatSwahili'sspreadmightleadtoapoliticalunionwithKenyaandeventualdominationbythe Kenyacolonists.(Ugandawasaprotectorate,notacolony.)ThepoliticallypowerfulGandafeltthat ifanyAfricanlanguageshouldbesingledoutforspecialstatus,itshouldbetheirownlanguage, Luganda.Thus,asW.H.Whiteleycomments, InthislandofChristians,Swahiliwasjeopardizedfromtheoutsetbyitsassociation withIslam....Whatevermeritsthelanguagemighthavehadfromtheadministrative pointofview,andthesewerefrequentlyvoicedbetween1910and1920,itisclearthat fortheChurchitwasanalientongueandfortheBagandaathinlyveiledthreattotheir status(1969:6970). Yetwhateverforcesweremarshalledagainstit,SwahiliflourishedinUgandawhetherornotithad officialstatusbecauseitwasuseful.EspeciallyinlinguisticallydiverseeasternUgandaandinits citiesofJinjaandKampala,alinguafrancawasclearlyneededinmultiethnicworkenvironments. Swahilibecameheavilyused(Scotton,1972),asitstillistoday.Themilitarywasdrawnfrom differentethnicgroups,andSwahiliwasestablishedasitsofficiallinguafranca(itwastaughtin schoolsformilitarychildreninthe1950s)onereasonwhyGeneralAminwaspredisposedtowards Swahili.Butmilitaryrulehasbeenvery 212

unpopularinUganda,andtheassociationhasleftSwahilitarnished.AUgandanacademic commentingonitspresentstatushassaid,"AdmittedlymanypeopleunderstandKiswahilibutdo notuseitextensivelyunless,forexample,theyareconfrontedwithsecuritymenatroadblocks" (Walusimbi,1984). AnindigenousalternativetoeitherEnglishorSwahiliasanofficiallanguagemighthavebeen Luganda,sinceitisthemothertongueofabout16percentofUgandansandathirdofthose surveyednationallyin1968claimedconversationalabilityinit(Ladefogedetal.,1971:25).But LugandaiscoloredbyitsassociationwithBaganda"imperialism"beforeindependence. Furthermore,speakersofotherlanguagesfeelthatelevatingLugandawouldputthemata disadvantage.A.Mazrui(1979:20)comments,"Lugandadoesposeproblemscomparableinkind,if notinmagnitude,tothecommunalpassionssurroundingtheissueofHindiinIndia."Another observertodayreportsthatmanypeoplehaveresortedtoLugandaasalinguafranca,butnoone suggestsitasthemainofficiallanguage. JustasSwahiliservesasaforceofpoliticalintegrationinKenyatoday,Englishifbydefaultmust servethisfunctioninUganda.Althoughitisnotwellknowninthenationevenmorethantwenty yearsafterindependence,itismoreorlessuniformlylesswellknownacrossthenation,givingno ethnicgroupspecialprivilege.This,ofcourse,hasalwaysbeenafactorinitsappealinbothnations, inadditiontoitsassociationwitheducationandauthority.WhileEnglishretainsitscolonialimage inUgandaasinKenya,itwasalwaysalesshighlycoloredimage. Sinceindependence,Englishhasbeenthedominantlanguageintheschoolsatalllevels, distinguishingUgandafromKenya,wherepolicyhaschangedseveraltimesandonceagainfavors moreuseofvernacularsandSwahili,andfromTanzania,whereEnglishisonlyamediuminpost primaryeducation.Formanyyears,thesamesixvernacularshavebeendesignatedasofficial languagesforthelowerprimarygrades.TheyareLuganda,Runyoro/Rutooro,Runyankole/Ruchiga, Lugbara,Lwo(Acholi),andAkarimonjong/Ateso.Thesearelogicalchoicesamongthevernaculars, butthepolicyisstillunworkable.Takingthecountryasawhole,about40percentofthepopulation arenotspeakersofanyoftheofficialschoolvernaculars(Ladefogedetal.,1971:98).Manypeople alsoliveoutsidetheareasinwhichtheirownlanguageisofficiallyusedintheschools.S. Heyneman(1975)researchinfiveruralandthreeurbanareasshowedthat47percentofthe classroomscontainedfourormorelanguagesandonly20percentoftheschoolshadmonolingual populations. Giventhissituationandthefactthatadequatematerialswerenotavailableinallvernacularsevenin thepreAminperiodandthatthenationalfinancialcrisistodaydoesnotpermitincreased productionnow,itisnotsurprisingtolearnthattodayEnglishisincreasinglybecomingamedium inallschoolsfromprimaryoneonwards,withneithermothertonguenorSwahiliconsideredasa medium(Walusimbi,1984).Lugandaistaughtasasubjectinsomesecondaryschools,butSwahili isnot,owingtolackofteachers.BotharepossiblemajorsubjectsatUganda'ssingleuniversity,but Swahilihasfewstudentstoday.(In1978,the 213

UgandanMinistryofEducationdidproposeanincreasedroleforvernacularsandintroducing Swahiliasaprimaryschoolsubject.Butwarbrokeoutin1979,andthepresentgovernmentissilent 6 abouttheissue.) PATTERNSOFLANGUAGEUSE AfricanattitudesingeneraltowardbilingualismarefardifferentfromthoseofmanyintheWestern world.Whenamiddleclasspersonisbilingual,manyWesternersseeitasadefiniteadvantage. Still,itisgenerallyassumedthatsuchbilingualsare"unusual"insomeway,withaspecial upbringingorabilities.AsE.Haugenpointsout,moreWesternersprobablyassociatebilingualism withthelowerclassesandthenseeitasadisadvantage."Formanypeople'bilingual'isa euphemismfor'linguisticallyhandicapped'.Itisanicewayofreferringtoteachingthemtheir mothertongue,whichhappensnottobethedominantlanguageinthecountrytheynowinhabit" (1972:308).Thus,beingbilingualisassociatedwithbeingunderprivileged. AlthoughEastAfricaisnodifferentfromtherestoftheworldinviewingsomelanguagesas symbolsofpowerandsocioeconomicprestigeandothersasnot,EastAfricansdefinitelydonot viewknowingmorethanonelanguageasunusual,nordotheynecessarilyseeitasastatusthatis bestiftransitory.SpeakingmorethanonelanguageisthenaturalstateofaffairsalloverEastAfrica. Bilingualismonlybecomesaproblemwhensocietalchoiceshavetobemadeamonglanguagesfor officialpurposes.Evenatthislevel,societalmonolingualismisnotviewedastheidealendproduct (althoughthismaybelesstrueinTanzania). WhobecomesbilingualinEastAfrica?Bilingualismcutsacrosssocioeconomicstatusandethnic groupmemberships,anditmaybeforthisreasonthatitcarriesnostigma.Rather,an"age syndrome"(Parkin,1974a:16364)ora"travelsyndrome"(Kashoki,1978:4043)characterizes EastAfricanbilingualism.Thesyndromeisacompositeoffeaturesfavoringmalesoverfemalesas typicalbilinguals.Otherfactorsareeducation(themoreeducation,themorebilingualismalthough thoseatthetopmayknowfewerlanguages,relyingontheofficiallanguagefortheirintergroup communicationsneeds),age(underthirtyfive,themorebilingual),travel(themoretravel,themore intergroupcontacts),andurbanresidence.Thesefactorsareobviouslyinterrelated:malesaremore likelytoreceivehighereducationthanfemales,andeducationtypicallyinvolvestravel,sincemany secondaryschoolsareboardingschools.StudiesbyWhiteley(1974b),Heine(1980a),Scotton (1972;1982a),Polom(1980c),andBarton(1980)makethispatternclear. Inaddition,certainattributesofaperson'sgroupaffectdegreesofbilingualism.Bilingualismisso prevalentinEastAfricapartlybecauseofthelargenumberofsmallethnicgroups,eachwithits ownmothertongue.Smalllinguisticgroupingsallovertheworldproducegoodsecondlanguage learners:witnesstheBerbersinNorthAfricaandtheDanesorFlemishspeakingBelgiansin 214

Europe.Thereasonsareobvious:whenthenumberssharingone'smothertonguearesmall,chances aregoodthatspeakerswillregularlyhavetodealwithothersnotsharingthatlanguage. Communicationwillrequirebilingualismonsomeone'spart,typicallythesmallgroupmember. Thus,BerndHeinenotesthat"thehighestnumbersofSwahilispeakersarefoundinKenya's linguisticminorities"(1980a:64),resultsfromanationalsurvey.Scotton(1972:15152)hasfound thatsomeminoritygroupsinUganda'scapital,Kampala,suchasspeakersofAteso(anEastern Niloticlanguage)knowmoreLugandaandSwahili(Bantulanguages)thanspeakersfromsome Bantugroups(forwhomtheselanguagesshouldbeeasiertolearn). Asacorollary,speakersfromlargerlinguisticgroupingsarelessbilingual.Heinenotesthatthe largertheKenyanethnicgroup,thesmallertheSwahilispeakingcommunitytendstobe.Whilehis studyshowedthatabout80percentofsomegroupsknewSwahili,only49percentoftheKikuyu, Kenya'slargestgroup,claimedtoknowSwahili.Observerspredictthatresearchwouldshowsimilar resultsforTanzania'sSukumaandHaya,bothlargegroups,whosememberstypicallyknowless Swahilithansmallgroupmembers. Whenagroupislarge,itcanexpectthatinteractionsonhometerritorywillbeinthemothertongue. InreportingonKenyanrurallanguageusepatterns,Abdulaziz(1982:105)notedthatinaKikuyu villageonlysevenmilesfromNairobionamainroad,"Athome,inspiteoftheproximityto Nairobi,thechildrenknownootherlanguagebeforeschool....Andatthemarketplace,sincethe buyersandsellersarealmostwhollyKikuyu,thelanguageusedisKikuyu."Henotesthatinother ruralsites,morethanonelanguageoftenwillbeheardinmarkets. Anotherreasonspeakersfromthelargergroupsknowfewerlanguagesisthattheycanexpectthat others,iftheylearnanothervernacularandnotjustalinguafranca,willlearntheirlanguage.Thisis partlybecauseofthepatronclientrelationshipthatoftenarisesbetweenmembersoflargegroups 7 andsmallgroups. Althoughtherearenospecificstudiesofitsinfluence,anotherfactorimportantinthelearningof Swahiliinparticularisreligion.SeveralstudiesinthePolomandHill(1980)volumemakeitclear thatSwahiliismorewidelyknownintheeasternhalfofTanzaniawherethemajorityofthe populationisMuslim. OnereasonbilingualismisacceptedasawayoflifeinEastAfricamaybethatitisthevehicleof socialcompartmentalizationwhichstillcharacterizesdailyinteractionsthere.AsJ.A.Fishman (1980:5)pointsout,theallocationofdifferentlinguisticvarietiestodifferentusesdependsonthe maintenanceofstrictboundariesbetweensocietalfunctions.Hegoesontosaythatmodernlife militatesagainstsuchcompartmentalization,listinganumberoffactorsthatdiminishit.Mostare associatedwithurbanism.Yet,urbanisminAfricaisclearlyassociatedwithbecomingbilingualand theneedtocompartmentalize.Possibly,theparticularurbanfactorswhichFishmandiscusses("the increaseinopennetwork,influidrolerelationship,insuperficial'publicfamiliarity'between strangersorsemistranger,innonstatusstressinginteractions..."[1980:5])haveyetto 215

affectEastAfrica.Theircominginfluence,however,isapparentinthelanguageusepatternsof theurbaneducated,wholessandlessdealwithasingleinteractioninasinglelanguage.Much borrowing,butultimatelylessbilingualism,wouldseemtobetheendresultofless compartmentalization. PATTERNSOFBILINGUALISM ThemostprevalentpatternofbilingualisminEastAfricaisspeakingone'sownmothertongueas wellasSwahili.Ifapersoniseducatedthroughsecondaryschool,heorshemayalsospeak English,butfewpersonsarebilingualinEnglishandnotalsoinSwahili.Thispatternismost likelytobethecaseinTanzania.Nonationalstatisticsexist,butsuchstudiesasPolom(1980c) indicatethatmothertongueSwahilibilingualismexistseverywhere,exceptpossiblyonthecoast whereuneducatedpersonsmaybemonolingualinSwahili,orinremoteruralpocketswherethe uneducatedmaybemonolingualinadifferenttongue.ThispatternisleastlikelyinUganda, wherea1968studyofanationalsampleshowedonly35percentclaimedconversationalability inSwahili(Ladefogedetal.,1971:25).(ButineasternUgandaandinKampalamanypeople knowSwahili.Allbut3percentinthesampleofKampalaworkers[N223]studiedbyScotton [1972]claimedtoknowsomeSwahili.)BilingualisminUgandamayinvolveanothervernacular oranotherlinguafranca,Luganda.(Inthe1971Ladefogedetal.study,slightlymoreclaimed conversationalcompetenceinLugandathaninSwahili.)Increasingly,educatedUgandansare makingEnglishtheirmaincontactlanguage(Walusimbi,1984),butin1968only21percent claimedconversationalabilityinit(Ladefogedetal.,1971:25). KenyarepresentsthemiddlecaseregardingSwahilibilingualism,withpossiblythreequartersof allKenyansspeakingatleastminimalSwahiliandalmostallurbandwellershavingrealfluency. Anationalstudyin196870(Heine,1980a:61)showedthat65percentclaimedtospeakSwahili. Whiteley(1974b:59)reportsonmultilingualismintwentyruralsamples.Wellover80percent ofhalfofthegroupsclaimedcompetenceinSwahili.Urbanstudies(Parkin,1974a;Scotton, 1982a)reportknowledgeofSwahilibyvirtuallyeveryrespondent. ThesepatternssuggestthatifEastAfricansarebilingual,theymostlikelyhavelearnedalingua franca,notsimplythelanguageofaneighboringgroup.Heine(1980a:61)reportedthat,while 42percentofhisKenyanrespondentsspokeSwahiliastheirsolesecondlanguage,onlyhalfofI percentspokeanothervernacularifitwastheironlyadditiontothemothertongue.Atthesame time,however,onethirdofhissampleknewnosecondlanguage. Unfortunately,Whitely(1974b)reportsnooverallstatisticsfortheKenyanruralgroupsstudied, butindividualreportsforeachgroupshowthateitherbilingualismortrilingualisminvolving onlyothervernacularsislow,whilethatinvolvingSwahiliand/orEnglishishigh.Themost commontrilingualpatternismothertongue,Swahili,andEnglish.C.M.Scotton(1982a:129), whostudied 216

threedifferentsamplesfromtheLuyiaethnicgroup,alsofoundsuchtrilingualismmost VariousurbanstudiesshowevenmoredramaticallythedominanceoflinguafrancasintheEast Africanrepertoire.WhilealmostalltheKampalaworkersstudiedbyScotton(1972:5658)knew someSwahili,76percentalsoknewsomeEnglish.Inaddition,46.6percentofthosewhowere notnativespeakersofLugandareportedknowingitaswell.InParkin(1974a:148)studyofa Nairobihousingestate(N349),onlyonepersonclaimedtoknowneitherSwahilinorEnglish; otherwisealltheheadsofhouseholdsurveyedclaimedtoknowSwahiliand42percentalso claimedtoknowEnglish.Scotton(1982a)comparedruralandurbanpatternsoflanguageuse amongtheLuyiaethnicgroupinKenya.Inbothruralandurbansample(N118),Swahiliwasthe mostwidelyknownsecondlanguage(92percentoverall).Thehighincidenceofbilingualism foundinthehomogeneousruralsampleistheresultoflabormigrationpatternsinEastAfrica: 8 manymenhaveworkedatsalariedjobsinmultiethnicsettingsduringtheirlives. InTanzania,thecrucialfindingisnotjustthatSwahiliisalmostinevitablythesecondlanguage added,butthatitisincreasinglyoverwhelmingmothertonguesintermsofbothfrequencyofuse andsituationalallocation.A1970studyofaDaresSalaamsuburb(N221)showedthatSwahili usepredominatedinalmostalloftheeightytwoindividualsituationsforwhichrespondents reportedlanguageuse(Barton,1980:197).Inaddition,Polom(1980c:130)estimatedthatthe usualpatternofdifferenceinfrequencyofusein1970forpeoplewhouseSwahiliandtheirown vernacularwasfourtoone.Specifically,PolomreportsontheusageoftwentyfiveTanzanians, whowereaskedtokeeplanguagediaries."ForallofthemSwahiliwasusedmorefrequentlythan theirownlanguageinproportionsthatvariedfromahighof15:1toalowof3:2"(Polom, 1980c:109). ThetrendtowardeventualmonolingualisminSwahiliseemsevidentinastudyofasampleof Haya(N50)livinginDaresSalaam(Rubanza,1971).WhileallcouldspeakHaya,theinroads SwahiliismakingwereshownbythefactthatsomelearnedSwahili,notHaya,astheirmain childhoodlanguage.Ofthoseinsemiskilledjobs,only60percentthoughttheycouldspeakHaya betterthanSwahili;evenfewer(42percent)inwhitecollarjobsthoughttheirHayabetter.Even morerevealingisthefactthat40percent(fouroutoften)ofanadditionalsampleofchildren agedseventofifteenshowedonlyweakabilitytospeakHayaandnotonespokeitverywell. Conversely,only10percentwereweakinSwahili,and30percentspokeitverywell(Rubanza, 1979:42).Onesecondaryschoolstudentsaid,"IspeakKihayainverylimitedcircles.Iusually speakKiswahili.WhenonespeaksKihayaatschoolheislookeddownuponandlaughedat. EvenathomeIuseKiswahilimorefrequentlyevenwhenIaddressmyfather"(Rubanza, 1979:45).WelleducatedHayamaintainabilingualisminEnglish,whichisusedattimesinthe office,butSwahiliistheirmainlanguage,withHayausedonlywithfriendsorrelatives.The onlysituationinwhichonecanbesureHayawillbeusedisoneinwhichtraditionalrolesare stressed,such 217

asburials.LanguageusepatternsintheHayahomelandinnorthwesternTanzaniaaremuch 9 different,tobesure,withmoreHayaused.Still,thetrendistowardoverallpreferenceforSwahili. WhileKenyansandUgandansalsouseSwahiliheavilyasalinguafranca,thedifferenceisthatthey alsousetheirownmothertonguesmorethanTanzanians.Inruralareas,themothertongueis typicallytheonlylanguageusedwithparentsandneighbors.Linguafrancasmaybeusedwith outsiders,butanyonewhodoesnotspeakthemothertonguewithethnicbrethrenisperceivedas showingoffandoutofline.(Ispentsixweeksinateacher'shomeinruralwesternKenyain1977 andneverheardhimspeakEnglishtohisschoolagechildren,eventhoughhespokeitwellandthe childrenfacedEnglishmediumexaminationsdeterminingtheireducationalfuture.)Ofcourse, schoolagechildrenthemselvesespeciallyteenagersmayspeakEnglishorEnglish/Swahiliasan ingrouplanguagewithpeers. Inurbansettings,theroleofmothertonguesisslightlydifferent.Swahili,English,or English/Swahilibecomesthemainlanguageanysalariedworkeruses(Parkin,1974b:169;Scotton, 1982a:126).Thehighertheeducationallevel,themoreEnglishused;seeScotton(1972:64)for KampalaandParkin(1974a:152)forNairobi.Yet,mothertonguesarefirmlyinplaceinmost nonworksettings.Forexample,M.H.Abdulaziz(1982:117)commentedonthebars,lodges,and restaurantsinMombasarunbymembersofparticularethnicgroupswheremanyofthepatronsare speakersofthesamelanguageastheproprietor.D.J.Parkin(1974a:149)reportedthat94percent oftheKikuyuworkersinthelargelyKikuyuareainNairobiwhichhestudiedusedtheirmother tonguemostwithneighbors.Inthemoremultiethnicareas,moreSwahiliandevensomeEnglish wouldbeused.Yetmosturbandwellersusetheirmothertongueeveryday(Scotton,1982a:26). Mothertonguemaintenance,evenincities,mayberelatedtothefactthatanovertethnicidentity remainsanecessaryattributeforcopingwithdailylifeinbothUgandaandKenya.AsAbdulaziz (1982:113)notesabouturbanKenya,"Thereis...strongattachmenttothemothertonguebecause oneiscontinuallylabeledasbelongingtosuchandsuchanethnicgroup,afactwhichhaspolitical andsocioeconomicconsequencesformany."ThiswasalsothecaseinKampalain1970(Scotton, 1972),and,fromallreports,itremainstrue.Becauseofthemilitarypresenceinrecentyearsand negativeattitudestowardit,moreUgandansthanin1970maysanctionuseofmothertongueseven inpublicsituations,asameansofmaintainingsecrecy. Still,inspiteofthedurabilityofmothertongues,bothSwahiliandEnglisharemovinginto traditionallyvernaculardomains.AhighlyeducatedKenyanreportsthatshefindsSwahiliuseatthe familylevelamazinglyontheincrease."IcannownamemorethantenfamiliesinNairobiwhere bothmotherandfatherbelongtothesamelanguagegroupbuttheytalktotheirchildreninSwahili" (AngogoKanyoro,1984).Shealsoreports,"Ihavealsometmanyyoungpeopleofages25and belowwhodonotknowanyKenyanvernacular 218

language,butspeakEnglishfirstandthenSwahili.Thesedonotresultfromintermarriages,butjust homeswithaffluenttoucheswheremomanddadspeakEnglishonlytothechildren."Onereason Englishisspokenistogivechildrenpracticeintheallimportantmediumofschoolleaving examinations.Abdulaziz(1982)reportssimilarpatterns,especiallyamongtheelite,butatleast someuseofmothertongueisusual. Inreferringtolanguageuseintermsofthislanguageorthat,theabovediscussionhasimpliedthat speakersalwaysmaintainasinglelanguageforasingleinteraction.Agooddealofcodeswitching characterizesmanyexchanges,especiallybetweenurbanbilinguals.Thesocialfunctionofcode switchingistosignalanattitudetowardtherelationshipbetweenparticipants,ortochangethat relationship.ThisistheargumentofScottonandUry(1977)andScotton(1982c);alsoseeParkin( 1974c).Bilingualcoequalsfromthesameethnicgroupmaycodeswitchtosymbolizetheirmutual dualidentities,withtheoverallpatternofuseoftwolanguagesmeetingthisfunction.Asnoted above,suchswitchingisespeciallycommonamongtheurbaneducated.Inothercases,each individualchangefromonelanguagetoanothersymbolizesanegotiationtochangethesocial distanceholdingbetweenparticipants.Scotton(1982c;1983)referstotheswitchingforthis purposeasmakingmarkedchoices.Thus,whenapassengeronaNairobibuswhofearsthatthe conductorwillnotgivehimhischangeisabouttogetoff,heswitchesfromtheunmarkedchoicefor thisinteraction,Swahili,intoEnglish.Englishisamarkedchoiceinthissituation,anditsuse symbolizesauthorityandeducation:thepassengerusesittolettheconductorknowheisnota persontobetrifledwith(ScottonandUry,1977:12). SUMMARY ThischapterhasoutlinedcurrentpatternsofbilingualisminEastAfricaandhassurveyedthe distributionofindigenouslanguages.WhilethethreenationsofEastAfrica(Uganda,Kenya,and Tanzania)showsimilaritiesintheirlinguisticmakeupandintheirbilingualismpatterns,theyshow somewhatdifferentofficialresponsestotheirlinguisticandhistoricalidentities.Inallcases,no singleindigenouslanguageisspokenbyasignificantenoughgroupofnativespeakerstomakeitan easychoiceastheofficiallanguage.Therefore,choosinganethnicallyneutrallanguageisthe alternativeallthreenationsfollowed.Thespecificchoices,however,werenotthesame.Inopting forSwahiliasitssoleofficialandnationallanguage,Tanzaniahasmostdepartedfrompolicies establishedundercolonialrule.AlthoughEnglishisstillthemediumofpostprimaryeducation (anditsrolewasreaffirmedin1983),itsoverallpositionhasbeenreduced.Thisalsoappliestothe vernaculars.TheuniformpracticeofusingSwahiliisasymbolofbothsocioeconomic egalitarianismandnationalintegration,reflectingthenation'ssocialisticpolicies. InmakingEnglishtheirchoiceasanethnicallyneutralofficiallanguage,KenyaandUgandahave chosenthecommonsolutioninAfrica.Ingeneral,colonial 219

languagesarethesoleormainofficiallanguages.Sincetheymaintainmodifiedcapitalism,itisnot surprisingthattheycarryoverthelanguagepoliciesfromcolonialdaysassociatedwith socioeconomicstratification.InmakingEnglishofficial,buttakingnoradicalstepstomakeit accessibletothemasses,KenyaandUgandahavechosenapolicythatkeepsthepossibilityfor socioeconomicmobilityinthehandsofaminority.Again,thisisthecommonpatterninAfrica. Perhapspartlytocompensateforthissituation,otherlanguageshavereceivedvaryingdegreesof recognition.Swahiliisthenationallanguageinbothnations,althoughinKenyaitismuchmore usedinpublic,formalcapacitiesanditalsohasadefinitestatusasaschoolsubject.Alimited,but unwieldy,numberofvernacularlanguagesareofficiallyrecognizedasthemediaofthelower primarygrades.Somewouldarguethatthisuseofvernacularsispedagogically,notpolitically, motivated,ofcourse.ForanoverviewonlanguageandeducationinEastAfrica,withspecial referencetopedagogicalpractices,seeChishimba(1982). Whethertheimbalancebetweenthosewhohaveaccesstotheofficiallanguageandthosewhodo notwillbechangedinthenearfutureisuncertain.Twosolutionsseempossible:tocontinuewith Englishasofficialbuttoimplementmassschemestomakeitmorewidelyknown;ortochangethe officiallanguage.SwahiliisthemostobviouscandidateinbothKenyaandUganda,althoughsome problemswiththissolutionhavebeendiscussedabove. ThegeneralargumentwhenAfricanlinguists/educationistsspeakoutonlanguagepolicyisthat indigenouslanguagesmusthaveamoresignificantofficialrole,especiallyineducation.This argumentisatoddswiththeactualpatternsoflanguageusenowinplace,asdescribedinthis chapter,withnormsamongtheeducatedfavoringmuchpublicuseofEnglish.Thesepatterns, however,couldbechanged.Moreofaproblemwouldbetochangelanguagepoliciesintheschools. ForgeneralstatementsonAfricaneducationallanguagepolicies,seeAfolayan(1978),Ansre (1978),orBokamba(1981).First,moreuseofvernacularsorevenSwahiliwhilemaintaining Englishastheofficiallanguageandthemediumofschoolexaminationsdoesnotseemwell motivated.Second,thereisthequestionoflogistics:ifeducationistobegininmothertongues, whichmothertongues?Especiallyinamobilepopulation,thenumberoftonguesthatneedtobe availableifeachchildistolearninhisorhermothertongueseemsunworkable.Finally,thereisthe investmentwhichthegoverningelitehasinEnglish;achangeinlanguagepolicywouldinevitably changethesocialstructuresinceitwouldalterpatternsofaccessinthesocioeconomicmarketplace. NOTES 1. ThankstotheFordFoundationsponsoredSurveyofLanguageUseinEasternAfrica, relativelymoreinformationisavailableforthispartofAfricathanforotherareas.Thesurvey volumes,basedondatagatheredfrom1968toabout1972,havespecialsectionsaboutlanguage ineducation.ThevolumesareBender,Bowen,Cooper,andFerguson, 220

eds.(1976)on 221 Ethiopia; Ladefoged, Glick,and Criper(1971)on Uganda; Ohannessianand Kashoki,eds. (1978)on Zambia;Polom andHill,eds. (1980)on Tanzania;and Whiteley,ed. (1974)on Kenya. 2 Whilenotall . subgrouping issuesare settled,a classificationof theEastAfrican Bantulanguages intofourgroups seems reasonable, followingNurse andPhilippson (1980).Twoof thesegroups extendbeyond thebordersof EastAfrica. 3 Foracasestudy . onthe relationshipof languageand ethnicgroup identitywith referencetothe Luyiagroup,see Angogo Kanyoro(1980; 1984).Alsosee Itebete(1974). 4 TheSwahili . dialectspokenin easternZaireis

called Kingwana.Itis fairlydifferent fromEast Africandialects, butstillmoreor lessmutually intelligible. 5 Anexampleof . thecommentsof thosewhowant moreofficial recognitionof SwahiliinKenya isfoundina featurearticleon May21,1983,in TheStandard,an Englishlanguage newspaperin Nairobi.Under theheadline, "Kiswahili NeedsMore Respect,"isan interviewwith thevice chairmanofthe KenyaKiswahili Association.Itis nocoincidence thatheisa nativespeakerof aKenyacoastal dialectof Swahili.In additionto arguingformore emphasison Swahiliinthe schoolsandits recognitionas theofficial language,he claimsthe superiorityof Kimvita,a Kenyancoastal dialect,over

Kiunguja,the dialectof Zanzibarwhich wasthebasisfor Standard Swahili. 6 Foradditional . information aboutlanguage ineducationin EastAfrica,see theFord Foundation surveyvolumes. Ofparticular interestare Glick's contributionto Ladefogedetal. (1971:85151) andGorman (1974b).Both authorsstudied reasonsfor successin Englishtests.In neitherstudy, however,was English performance foundtobe significantly relatedtoany variablesstudied (suchas urban/rural residence,age, sex,initial mediumor education, father's education). 7 Byhistorical . accident,both Kenya'sand Uganda's capitalsarein thehomelandof thelargestethnic

group,the Gandain Ugandaandthe Gikuyuin Kenya.Thus,if speakersare goingtoadda vernacularto theirrepertoire, Lugandainparts ofUgandaand certainlyin Kampala,or Kikuyuinparts ofKenyaand mostlikelyin Nairobiisthe obviouschoice. Inaddition,the influenceofthe largestgroupis feltelsewhere: reportingon repertoiresof samplegroups fromacross Kenya,Whiteley notes,"Taking allthesamples, Kikuyuis reportedasa fourth(fifth, sixth,etc.) languagemore thantwiceas oftenasany otherlanguage"( 1974b:53). Parkin'sstudyof languageadding practicesintwo patronclient groupsin Nairobi(1974b) alsoshowedthat thepatrongroup wasthelarger oneandthatit wastheclient

groupwhich addedthelarger group'slanguage inthegreater numbers.He studied KikuyuKamba andLuoLuyia pairs. Scotton(1972) givesadditional evidencethat largegroup memberscount onothersto learntheir languagesrather thanviceversa. WhileSwahiliis heavilyusedasa linguafrancain Kampala,Ganda claimedtobe abletospeak muchless Swahilithan otherethnic groups.Inthe multiethnic sample(N223), 55percent claimedability toatleastask andanswer questionsin Swahili,butonly 37percentof Gandaclaimed theycoulddo this.Evenother EasternBantu language speakers(the groupcontaining Luganda)had quitedifferent repertoires,with 63percent claimingthis

abilityin Swahili. 8 Abdulaziz . (1982:107),who alsostudied Kenyanrural areas, commented,"In anumberof casestheleader inthevillageor homesteadisan exsoldier, policeman,or urbanworker whohassome knowledgeof Swahilior English,which languageshe usedin transactional settings." 9 Still,many . Tanzanian parentswant theirchildrento learntheir mothertongues.

Rubanza (1979:44) foundthat76 percentofhis sample wishedtheir childrento speakHayaas theirfirst languageand only20 percent actually expresseda preferencefor Swahiliin thisstatus. Polom (1980c:131) alsoreported thatabout fourfifthsof students interviewedat teacher training colleges(no totalnumber given)inthe early1970s saidthey wouldmake theirchildren learntheir mother language,but wouldgive Swahili preference. "The motivation wasmost oftenself identification, thevernacular beingthe genuine bearerof

BIBLIOGRAPHY AbdulazizM.H.1982."PatternsofLanguageAcquisitionandUseinKenya: RuralUrbanDifferences."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage34: 95120. AfolayanA.1978."TowardsanAdequateTheoryofBilingualEducationfor Africa."InInternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation,ed.J.E.Alatis. Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversity,pp.33090. AngogoKanyoroR.1980."LinguisticandAttitudinalFactorsintheMaintenance ofLuyiaGroupIdentity."Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofTexas,Austin.(Published undernewtitle,1983.UnityinDiversity,aLinguisticSurveyoftheAbaluyiaof WesternKenya.Wein:AfroPub.). .1984.Personalcommunication. AnsreG.1978."TheUseofIndigenousLanguagesinEducationinSubSaharan Africa:Presuppositions,Lessons,andProspects."InInternationalDimensionsof BilingualEducation,ed.J.E.Alatis,Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversity, pp.285301. BartonH.D.1980."LanguageUseAmongIlalaResidents."InLanguagein Tanzania,ed.E.PolomeandC.P.Hill.London:InternationalAfricanInstitute andOxfordUniversityPress. BenderM.L.,J.D.Bowen,R.L.Cooper,andC.A.Ferguson,eds.1976. LanguageinEthiopia.London:OxfordUniversityPress. BokambaE.D.1981."LanguageandNationalDevelopmentinSubSaharan Africa:AProgressReport."StudiesintheLinguisticSciences11:125. BujraJ.1974."Pumwani:LanguageUsageinanUrbanMuslimCommunity."In LanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp. 21752. ChishimbaM.M.1981."LanguageTeachingandLiteracyinEastAfrica."In AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,ed.R.L.Kaplan.Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House,pp.16888. EhretC.1980."TheNiloticLanguagesofTanzania."InLanguageinTanzania,ed. E.PolorndandC.P.Hill.London:InternationalAfricanInstituteandOxford UniversityPress,pp.6878. FishmanJ.A.1980."BilingualismandBiculturalismasIndividualandasSocietal Phenomena."JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment1:315. GormanT.P.1974a."TheDevelopmentofLanguagePolicyinKenyawith ParticularReferencetotheEducationalSystem."InLanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.

traditions," commented Polom. Therewas alsothe practical reasonthat Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.397454. parents wantedtheir 222 childrentobe ableto conversewith grandparents whomight notknow Swahiliwell.

.1974b."TheTeachingofLanguageArtsSecondaryLevel:SomeSignificantProblems."In LanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversity,pp.481537. GreenbergJ.H.1963."TheLanguagesofAfrica."InternationalJournalofAmericanLinguistics 29:1. .1971a."AfricanLanguages."InLanguage,Culture,andCommunication,ed.F.H.Greenberg. Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,pp.12636. .1971b."Urbanism,Migration,andLanguage."InLanguage,Culture,andCommunication,ed. F.H.Greenberg.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,pp.198211. GuthrieM.196771.ComparativeBantu.Vols.14.London:GreggPress. HaugenE.1972."TheStigmataofBilingualism."InTheEcologyofLanguage,ed.E.Haugen. Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,pp.30724. HeineBernd.1973."ZurgenetischenGliederungderBantusprachen."Afrikaundbersee56:164 84. .1980a."LanguageandSociety."InLanguageandDialectAtlasofKenya,ed.B.HeineandW. J.G.Hhlig.Vol.1.Berlin:Reimer,pp.6067. .1980b."TheNonBantuLanguagesofKenya."InLanguageandDialectAtlasofKenya,ed.B. HeineandW.J.Mhlig.Vol.1.Berlin:Reimer,pp.5358. .1980c."TheNonBantuLanguagesofKenya."InLanguageandDialectAtlasofKenya,ed.B. HeineandW.J.Mhlig.Vol.2.Berlin:Reimer. HenriciAlick.1973."NumericalClassificationofBantuLanguages."AfricanLanguageStudies14: 82104. HeynemannS.1975."InfluencesonAcademicAchievementinUganda:A'ColemanReport'froma NonindustrializedSociety."Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofChicago. HinnebuschT.J.1976."Swahili:GeneticAffiliationsandEvidence."StudiesinAfricanLinguistics, Supplement6:95108. .1979."Swahili."InLanguagesandTheirStatus,ed.T.Shopen.Cambridge,Mass.:Winthrop, pp.20993. HinnebuschT.J.,D.Nurse,andM.Mould.1981.StudiesintheClassificationofEasternBantu Languages.Hamburg:HelmutBuske. KashokiM.E.1978."TheLanguageSituationinZambia."InLanguageinZambia,ed.S. OhannessianandM.E.Kashoki.London:InternationalAfricanInstitute,pp.946. LadefogedP.,R.Glick,andC.Criper.1971.LanguageinUganda.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress. MazruiA.1979.LanguagePolicyAfterAmin.AfricanReport.SeptemberOctober,pp.2022. MhligW.J.G.1980."BantuLanguages."InLanguageandDialectAtlasofKenya,ed.B.Heine andW.J.B.Mohlig.Vol.1.Berlin:Reimer,pp.1152. MolnosA.1969.LanguageProblemsinAfrica.Nairobi:EastAfricanResearchInformationCentre. NealeB.1974.Kenya'sAsianLanguages.InLanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi: OxfordUniversityPress,pp.6986. NurseD.,andG.Philippson.1980."TheBantuLanguagesofEastAfrica:ALexicostatistical Survey."InLanguageinTanzania,ed.E.PolomandC.P.Hill.London:InternationalAfrican InstituteandOxfordUniversityPress,pp.2667.

223

OhannessianS.,andM.E.Kashoki,eds.1981.LanguageinZambia.London:InternationalAfrican InstituteandOxfordUniversityPress. ParkinD.J.1974a."StatusFactorsinLanguageAdding:BehatiHousingEstateinNairobi."In LanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.14766. .1974b."LanguageShiftandEthnicityinNairobi:TheSpeechCommunityofKaloneni."In LanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.16788. .1974c."LanguageSwitchinginNairobi."InLanguageinKenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi: OxfordUniversityPress,pp.189216. PolomE.1980a."TheLanguagesofTanzania."InLanguageinTanzania,ed.E.PolomandC.P. Hill.London:InternationalAfricanInstituteandOxfordUniversityPress,pp.325. .1980b."SwahiliinTanzania."InLanguageinTanzania,ed.E.PolomandC.P.Hill.London: InternationalAfricanInstituteandOxfordUniversityPress,pp.79102. .1980c."Tanzania:ASociolinguisticPerspective."InLanguageinTanzania,ed.E.Polomand C.P.Hill.London:InternationalAfricanInstituteandOxfordUniversityPress,pp.10338. RubanzaY.1971."TheRelationshipBetweenKiswahiliandOtherAfricanLanguages:TheCaseof Kihaya."M.A.Thesis,UniversityofDaresSalaam. ScottonC.M.1972.ChoosingaLinguaFrancainanAfricanCapital.Edmonton:Linguistic Research,Inc. .1977."LinguisticPerformanceasaSocioeconomicIndicator."JournalofSocialPsychology 102:3545. .1978."LanguageinEastAfrica:LinguisticPatternsandPoliticalIdeologies."InAdvancesin theStudyofSocietalMultilingualism,ed.J.A.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,pp.71960. .1982a."AnUrbanRuralComparisonofLanguageUseAmongtheLuyiainKenya." InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage34:12136. .1982b."LearningLinguaFrancasandSocioeconomicIntegration:EvidencefromAfrica."In LanguageSpread,ed.R.L.Cooper.Bloomington:IndianaUniversity,pp.6394. .1982c."ThePossibilityofCodeSwitching:MotivationforMaintainingMultilingualism." AnthropologicalLinguistics24:43244. .1983."TheNegotiationofIdentitiesinConversation:ATheoryofMarkednessandCode Choice."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage44:11536. ScottonC.M.,andW.Ury.1977."BilingualStrategies:TheSocialFunctionofCodeSwitching." InternationalJournalofTheSociologyofLanguage13:520. SedlakPhilip.1983.Personalcommunication. WalusimbiLivingstone.1984.Personalcommunication. WhiteleyW.H.1969."Swahili,theRiseofaNationalLanguage."London:Methuen. ,ed.1974a.LanguageinKenya.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress. .1974b."TheClassificationandDistributionofKenya'sAfricanLanguages."InLanguagein Kenya,ed.W.H.Whiteley.Nairobi:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.1368. ZaborskiA.1976."CushiticOverview."InTheNonSemiticLanguagesofEthiopia,ed.M.L. Bender.EastLansing,Mich.:AfricanStudiesCenter,pp.6784. 224

11LinguisticMinoritiesProject LINGUISTICMINORITIESANDTHEMOTHERTONGUEDEBATEINENGLAND Britishsocietyhasdevelopedfrom,andstillretains,awidediversityofculturalinfluences, differentiatedbyregional,socioeconomic,religious,andlinguisticfactors.Inparticular,Englandis nowmoreobviouslythaneverbeforeamultilingualsociety,withlargesectionsofthepopulation usingmorethanonelanguageintheirdailylives.ItalianorPolishorGujerati,forexample,are spokeninthefamily,inlocalshops,orincommunityinstitutions.Somebilingualchildrenand adultshaveaccesstonewspapers,books,films,andradioprogramsintheirhomelanguageaswell asinEnglish.Somechildrenattendlessonstolearnmoreoftheirhomelanguage,orperhapsto learntoreadandwriteanotherlanguagewhichisvaluedbytheircommunity(Wilding,1981). Yet,thereisalackofresearchandinformationonmultilingualisminEngland,aclearreflectionof theofficialinvisibilityofmultilingualismatleastuntilthe1970s.Thelackofinterestshownby educationalistsinEnglandintheresearchfindingsandevaluationsofbilingualschemesinWales, Scotland,orIrelandsuggeststhattheexperienceofbilingualismamongindigenousBritish populationswasnotperceivedtoberelevanteithertothebilingualismofnonindigenouspopulations inEnglandortothedebateaboutmodernlanguageteaching. ThelackofanybasicstatisticsonlanguageaffiliationinEnglandhascontributedtothisneglect,but nodefinitedecisionhasyetbeenmadetoincludealanguagequestioninfuturecensusesinEngland. Themostbasicinformationatleastisnecessarytoinformsocialpoliciesrelatedtomultilingualism, suchastheprovisionofcommunityinterpretersandtranslators,mediacoverage,andschooland adulteducationpolicies.Thedearthofinformationmayhavecontributedtothesituationwefound in1980,whenonlyafewLocalEducationAuthority(LEA)officersandadvisersknewhowmany bilingualpupilstheyhadintheirschools.However,lackofofficialstatisticsdoesnotexplainthe absence 225

ofinformationamongmanyteachersandadministratorsabouttherangeandtypeof"mother tongue"teachingprovisionorganizedoutsidethestateschoolsystem.Insomeareas,ahigh percentageofbilingualpupilsattendsthisparallelformofschooling.Butevenintheearly1980s, manyteachersknewlittleaboutthisinfluenceontheeducationaldevelopmentoftheirpupils,or, iftheydid,theydidnotconsiderittobedirectlyrelevanttotheirwork(SaifullahKhan,1980). Oneexplanationfortherelativelackofresearchanddiscussionaboutthepolicyimplicationsof bilingualisminEnglandis,ofcourse,theparticularlyimportantinternationalroleoftheEnglish language.Theotherexplanationisnotsimplytheconversethedifferentialandinferiorstatus accordedtoallotherthanEnglishlanguages.Wehavetorememberthatattitudestolanguages cannotbeassessedinisolationfromattitudestothespeakersofthoselanguages.Therelative statusofdifferentminoritylanguagesinEnglandisalsoinfluencedinlargepartbythehistorical relationsbetweenEnglandandtheircountriesoforiginandbythepresentsocioeconomicstatus ofthespeakers.ThesefactorshelptoexplainhowtheSouthEuropeanlanguagesofmigrant workersfromEuropeanCommunitycountries,andtheEasternEuropeanlanguagesofpolitical refugeesfromWorldWarIIhavegreaterprestigethantheSouthAsianlanguagesspokenby settlersfromexcolonialcountries. Twootherfactorscontributingtotherelativelyslowdevelopmentofinterestinthisfieldhelpto explainwhysomeofthesehigherstatusEuropeanlanguagesaretaughtasmodernlanguagesto monolingualEnglishpupilsinLEAschools,butoftennottochildrenofbilingualfamilies.The firstrelatestothedominantperspectiveonminoritiesingeneralandonbilingualismin particular.Thesecondlinksthesepointswiththehistoricaldevelopmentofpoliciesandpractices setuptodealwiththenewsituationscreatedbythepresenceofpupilsfromdifferentcultural andlinguisticbackgrounds. InEngland,theterms"immigrant"and"minority"arealmostsynonymouswith"coloured."In presentingtheLinguisticMinoritiesProject,wehavealwaysstressedthatwewereequally interestedinthelanguagesspokenbythe"invisible"whiteminorities.Astheterm"immigrant" isalsousedinpopulardebatestoincludeBritishbornchildrenofimmigrants,wehave steadfastlyavoidedusingthistermaltogether.Inthiscontextitisnotsurprising,therefore,that muchoftheresearchinEnglandhasfocusedon"black"or"brown"minorities.Asthese minoritiesareperceivedtobe"theproblem"ratherthanthecatalystforthedominantinstitutions toreconsidertheappropriatenessoftheirprovisionforallcategoriesofthepopulation,attention hasbeenfocused,throughpolicybasedresearchinparticular,ondifficultiestobesolvedinstead ofopportunitiestobelearnedfrom. HISTORICALBACKGROUND ThepoliticalrefugeesfromEasternEuropewhosettledinBritainafterWorldWarIIarrived beforetheissuesofimmigrationand"race"(seenintermsof 226

blackwhiterelations)becamecloselylinkedinpopulardiscourse.MostspeakersofPolish, Ukrainian,andLatvian,forexample,settledinBritainbetween1945and1950.Theywere,however, subjecttoanothercharacteristicresponsebyBritishinstitutions,professionals,andlaypeoplewhich isoftenignoredintheliteratureaboutthemorerecentnonindigenousminorities.Thisisthe essentiallymonolingualperspectiveofthedominantethnicgroupinEngland.Whilerelatedtothe generalassimilativeresponsetothearrivalofimmigrants,thestressontheacquisitionofEnglish withoutreferencetothefirstlanguageshapedthedevelopmentofbotheducationpolicyand practice.ManymembersoftheseEasternEuropeanlinguisticminoritiessoonunderstoodthatonly Englishwasacceptedinthepublicdomainandinformalinteractions,andtheirownsubordinate languagesshouldberestrictedtoprivate,informal,communitybasedactivities. The1950sand1960swereyearsofeconomicexpansion,andworkerswererecruitedfromcolonies andexcoloniestothemetropolistomeetthemostlypoliticallydefinedlaborshortage.This apparentshortagecouldhavebeentackledthroughanalternativeeconomicandpoliticalstrategy, whichwouldhaveinvolvedgreaterinvestmentintherenewalofindustrialequipmentandan improvementinthewagesofthelowestpaidindustrialworkers.Instead,thecheaplaborprovided bythecountriesoftheBritishEmpirewastakenadvantageof. ManyofthemigrantworkersfromSouthAsiaandtheCaribbeansettledinthecheapesthousing andtookonjobswithunsocialhours,poorconditions,andwages. TheconditionoftherundowninnercityareasofmanyBritishcitiesbecameassociatedinthepublic mindwiththearrivalof"alien"outsiders.Bytheearly1960s,therewasrisingpressurefromlocal authoritiesandpublicopiniontolimitimmigration.Astheincreasinglyrestrictivelegislationwas introduced,workersandtheirfamiliesarrivedto"beattheban."Bytheearly1970s,amythology aboutthepresenceof"blackpeople"becamepervasiveandwasreinforcedbyinflammatoryand divisivecoveragebythemedia. Withtheintensificationofeconomicrecessioninthelate1970s,highratesofunemployment developed,particularlyinthosesectorsoftheBritisheconomythathadpreviouslybeendependent onimmigrantlabor.Inthesedecliningor"restructuring"industries,thereweremanyexamplesof bothblatantandsubtleformsofinstitutionalracism.Notsurprisingly,the1970salsosawan increaseinfascistorganizationandovertracialhostilityonthestreet. Otherfundamentaleconomicandpoliticalrealitiesalteredthepatternofmigrationinthe1970s. Theinternationalreorganizationofthemarketeconomybetweennorthandsouthbytransnational corporations,andBritain'sentryintotheEuropeanEconomicCommunityin1973,affectedpatterns ofemploymentandsourcesoflabor.ForindustrializedNorthwestEuropetheMediterranean peripheryprovidedlargenumbersofworkersfrom,forexample,theMaghreb,Portugal,Spain, Greece,Cyprus,Yugoslavia,andTurkey.MostmigrantworkersofSouthEuropeanoriginhave cometoEnglandsince1950,withtheexception 227

ofsomeoftheolderItalianpopulationwhichdatesbacktothenineteenthcentury.Manyofthe migrantworkerswithintheEuropeanCommunityhavelesspoliticalandlegalsecuritythantheex colonialsettlersinBritainandarefoundintheleastsecure,lowestpaid,andoftenleastunionized sectorsoftheeconomy,especiallytheservicetradessuchascateringandhotelwork.Despitethe rapidincreaseinunemploymentinmanyindustrialcountries,manydescendantsofmigrantworkers andtheirfamiliesarenotfulfillingtheexpectationsandconvenienceofthe"host"countryby returningtotheir"homelands." TherearealsolinguisticminoritiesofGreekCypriotandTurkishCypriotorigininEngland,who cameoriginallyasmigrantlaborfromanexcolony.Sincethe1974warinCyprus,someatleastcan beregardedasrefugees.OtherpoliticalrefugeescamefromEastAfricaandSoutheastAsiainthe late1960sandlate1970s,respectively,andsmallernumbersfromLatinAmerica. TherearetwomajordimensionsintheclassificationofthedifferentlinguisticminoritiesinEngland (LinguisticMinoritiesProject,1984).Theydiffer,first,inthemainreasonoftheoriginalmigration andsettlement(e.g.,economicmigrantversuspoliticalrefugee)and,second,inthetypeofcountry oforigin(e.g.,excolonialThirdWorldandEuropeancountries).Bothtypesofcategorizationoffer importantperspectivesforananalysisthatrecognizestheinteractionbetweentheeconomicand politicalfactorsbehindthemigrations.Bothremindus,aswehavementionedearlier,thatthestatus ofaminoritylanguageiscloselyboundupwiththeperceivedstatusofitsspeakers. THEMAINLINGUISTICMINORITIES ThedistributionoftheSouthAsianpopulationsacrossthecountryislargelyaresultofthe employmentopportunitiesthatexistedinthe1950sand1960s,andoftheprocessofchainmigration inwhichinformationaboutspecificlocalitiesandpersonalcontactsintheselocalitiesplayedan importantpart.ThemajorareasofsettlementweretheconurbationsofGreaterLondon,the Midlands,Yorkshire,andLancashire.PanjabispeakingMuslimsarestronglyrepresentedin BradfordandtheLancashiretownsinthetextileindustries,andtoalesserextentinBirmingham, partsofEastLondon,andmanyothertowns.PanjabispeakingSikhsandHindustogetherprobably formthemostnumerouslinguisticminorityandarewidelydispersedacrossthecountry.Themain areasofsettlementareSouthallandNewhaminLondon;Birmingham,Wolverhampton,Coventry; Leeds,Bradford,Huddersfield;Peterborough,Bedford,Gravesend;andanumberofothersmaller towns.Membersofthislinguisticminoritytend,especiallyintheMidlands,tobeemployedin heavyindustryandengineeringfactories.Gujeratispeakers,includingsomeEastAfricanAsians, aretobefoundinlargenumbersinLeicester,Coventry,EastandNorthWestLondon,andinthe northerntextiletowns.ForBengalispeakers,themajorsettlementsareinEastLondonwheremany workintheclothingindustry,withsmallernumbersinBirmingham,Manchester,Bradford, Coventry,andseveralothertowns.Other 228

SouthAsianlinguisticminoritieswhohavesettledinsmallnumbersinparticularlocalitiesinclude Hindispeakersinseveralcities,MalayalamandTamilspeakersinpartsofLondon(assecondary migrantsfromMalaysiaandSingapore),andPushtuspeakersinBradfordandBirmingham. ConsiderablepreviousresearchhasbeenconductedamongtheSouthAsianpopulationsinBritain. Muchofithasconcentratedonissuesofdiscriminationfacedbythese"visible"minoritiesinthe fieldsofhousing,employment,andeducation.Oftentheyhavebeenstudiedalongsidepeopleof Caribbeanoriginwhohavesettledinsimilarneighborhoods.Asaresult,evensuchsubstantial studiesasRexandMoore(1976),andSmith(1977)havenotusuallydistinguishedbetweenthe linguisticandethnicminoritieswithintheSouthAsianpopulation,althoughotherstudiesbysocial anthropologistshavefocusedonspecificminoritiesinparticularlocalsettings. TheoutstandingfeatureofthelanguagebackgroundofallSouthAsianlinguisticminoritiesisthe widerangeofrelatedlanguages,varieties,anddialectsthatexiststhroughoutthesubcontinent, coupledwiththehighlevelofmultilingualisminvolvingregionallanguages,nationallanguages,and English.AlthoughtheIndiansubcontinentisthehomeoftwomajorlanguage"families,"the DravidiangroupinthesouthandtheIndicinthenorth,theDravidianlanguagesarescarcely representedinEngland.ThemajorityofspeakersofSouthAsianlanguageshaveoriginsinrural areasofNorthIndia,Pakistan,andBangladesh,anduseoneofthelocalruralvernacularsasthe homelanguage.Theymayalsouseoneofthestandardregionallanguages,especiallyforformal purposes,includingthoseinvolvingtheuseofwrittenlanguage.Theyarelikelyinthefirstplaceto expresstheirlanguageloyaltyintermsofthestandardtaughtlanguageratherthanthehome language.Thus,forexample,somepeopleoriginatingfromSylhetinBangladeshwhospeakSylheti arelikelytonametheirlanguageasBengali,andtoseekmothertongueteachinginthatnational language.AfewarebeginningtocampaigntoraisethestatusofSylheti,pointingouttheexistence ofanearlierSylhetiliteratureinadistinctscript,andsuggestingthatclassesforchildreninEngland shoulduseandteachSylhetiratherthanorinadditiontoBengali. Insomecases,theboundarybetweenlanguageanddialectismorecomplexstill.Forexample, Kutchi(sometimesspelledKachchiinEnglishorthography)isusuallycharacterizedbylinguistsas adialectoravarietycloselyrelatedtoSindhi,onethatmayhavedevelopedoutofcontactbetween earliervarietiesofSindhiandGujerati.However,becauseoftheirfamilyoriginsinGujeratstateand educationthroughthemediumofGujerati,manyKutchispeakersinEnglandwilldescribe themselvesasspeakersofavarietyofGujerati. TheproblemoflanguagenamingisofparticularinterestwithreferencetospeakersofPanjabiand Urdu.Inordertounderstandtheproblem,itisnecessarytoappreciatethesociolinguistichistoryof northernIndiaandPakistan(LMP,1984). Briefly,however,mostfamiliesinEnglandwithoriginsinthePanjab,whether 229

inIndiaorPakistan,andwhethertheyareMuslim,Sikh,orHindubyreligion,willusespoken varietiesofPanjabiwhicharelikelytobemutuallyintelligible.Furthermore,languagessuchas HindiandUrducontinuetoservethefunctionoflinguafrancaamongspeakersofdifferentSouth AsianlanguagesinBritain.However,Muslims,Sikhs,andHinduswouldnormallyexpecttuition intheirdistinctlanguagesofliteracy,forexample,PanjabiintheGurmukhiscriptforSikhs; HinduorPanjabiintheGurmukhiscriptforHindusoriginatingfromthepresentIndianstateof Panjab;andUrduforMuslimsfromthePakistanipartofPanjab.Obviously,then,forpurposesof planningeducationalsupport,itisdesirabletomakeadistinctionbetweenthreelinguistic minorities. MostofthepeopleofEastAsianoriginwhonowliveinBritainareofChineseethnic backgroundandarespeakersofCantonese,Hakka,Hokkien,andVietnamese.Therearealso smallnumbersofpeopleofMalay,Indochinese,andJapaneseorigininvariouspartsofthe country. SizableminoritiesofChineseoriginhavebeenfoundinBritainsinceatleasttheearlypartofthe twentiethcentury,particularlyindocklandareasofEastLondonandLiverpool.Awaveof migrationfromsouthernChinainthisperiodledtotheestablishmentofcommunitiesof overseasChineseinmanypartsoftheworld.However,manyofthesesettlementsinEnglandare largelytheresultoflatermigrationsoriginatingfromHongKongandtheNewTerritories.Many ofthesesettlerswereemployedinthecateringtrade,workingeitherinChineserestaurantsorin takeaways(Watson,1977).LondoninparticularhasalargenumberofpeopleofChineseorigin whohavecometotheUnitedKingdomtofurthertheireducation.Manyofthislastgroupare fromMalaysiaorSingaporeratherthanfromHongKong.Themostrecentgroupofmigrantsare politicalrefugeesfromVietnam(Jones,1983). WithsuchavariedrangeofmigrationhistorieswithinthisminorityinBritain,thereisobviously arichvarietyofsocial,ethnic,andlinguisticbackgrounds.EventhemigrantsfromHongKong arebynomeansahomogeneousethnicgroup.MosthaveoriginsintheruralNewTerritories ratherthaninurbanHongKongitself.SomehavetheHakkalanguageastheirspoken vernacular.TheHakka(k'echiaorguest)peoplearebelievedtohaveoriginatedinnorthern China,migratedsouthwardsseveralhundredyearsago,andcannowbefoundsettledinwidely dispersedpocketsinmostpartsofsouthernChinaandinanumberofvillagesintheruralareas oftheNewTerritories.TheCantonesemothertonguespeakers(puntipeople)areindigenousto southernChina.Economicandpoliticalpressureinthe1950sand1960scausedmanypeople fromruralpartsofsouthernChinatomovefromthePeoplesRepublic,toexpandingurbanareas suchasHongKongandMacao.SoformanyCantonesespeakersthemovetoBritainwasa secondstageofmigration. RefugeesfromVietnamareforthemostpart"ethnicChinese,"mostofthemspeakingCantonese astheirmothertongue(sometimeswithaquitedistinctiveaccent).Manyofthemhavebeen educatedthroughthemediumofVietnamese,andafewhavehadcontactwithFrenchand Englishasthelanguageofrecent 230

occupyingpowers.PeopleofethnicChineseoriginwhosettledinBritainfromSingaporeand MalaysiaarefromCantoneseandHokkienspeakingbackgroundsforthemostpart.However, educationalpoliciesinthosetwocountrieshavetendedtopromotethelearningofEnglishand MandarininthecaseofSingapore,andofMalayinthecaseofMalaysia,withtheresultthat significantlanguageshiftawayfromCantoneseandHokkienhasalreadytakenplaceamongthe educatedclasses.TherearealsosmallernumbersofpeopleofChineseethnicoriginwhomigrated toEnglandfromtheCaribbean,aftertheirfamilieshadbeenestablishedthereforthreeormore generations.MostofthemnowhavelittleornoknowledgeofanyoftheChineselanguages. ThemajorconcentrationsofspeakersofChineselanguagesareinLondon,Liverpool,Birmingham, Glasgow,andManchester.Theremainderarewidelyscatteredaroundthecountry,atendencythat hasarisenbecauseofthelimitedmarketforChinesefoodinindividuallocalities.Onthewhole,it appearsthatthepopulationofChineseorigininEnglandisrelativelyyoung,probablytheresultof migrationpatternsinwhichyoungmenwerethepioneersinthe1960s,andwerefollowedbytheir wivessomeyearslater. Since1945,largenumbersofpeoplefromthelessdevelopedsouthernperipheryofEuropehave migratedinsearchofworktotheurbancentersofmanyNorthwestEuropeancountries.TheUnited KingdomhasreceivedasmallerproportionofSouthEuropeanmigrantsthan,forexample,West GermanyorFrance.However,significantnumbersofItalian,Portuguese,Spanish,andCypriot peoplehavesettledinEngland.Herewewillpresentsomeofthesociolinguisticfeaturesofafewof theselinguisticminorities. TherehasbeenanItalianpresenceinBritainforseveralcenturies,withtrading,banking,and culturallinksgoingbacktobeforetheRenaissance.SeveralthousandItalianswerelivinginthe ClerkenwellareaofLondoninthemidnineteenthcentury.Fromthenuntilthefirstdecadeofthis century,therewasasignificantincreaseinmigrationfromnorthernItaly.Bytheturnofthecentury, therewasrapidgrowthandconsiderableprosperityintheserviceandcateringindustries,andafter 1911cafelifeflourishedinLondonandelsewhereinBritain.TheItalianswerethefirsttomoveinto thissector,andsomebecameverysuccessfulentrepreneurs.TheperiodofprosperityforItaliansat thebeginningofthiscenturywasshatteredbyWorldWarII,whentheItalianspeakingminority wereclassifiedas"aliens,"andmanywereinternedorweredeportedtoAustraliaorCanada.Others returnedtoItaly. ThepostwarperiodhasbeencharacterizedprimarilybymigrationfromthesouthofItaly,from regionssuchasCampania,Calabria,andSicily.Initially,thismigrationwasencouragedbythe ItalianandBritishgovernmentstomeetincreasinglabordemandsinBritain'sexpandingindustries. Theinitialofficiallysponsoredrecruitmentlaterdevelopedintoapatternofchainmigrationfrom thesesameareasofsouthernItaly.NewsettlementsofItalianswereestablished,principallyinthe southMidlands,butalsointhenorthandsoutheastofEngland.Italianmenwererecruitedforthe brickindustry,basedprincipallyinBedford 231

butalsoinafewothertowns.ManyotherItaliansfoundemploymentinthehorticulturalindustry intheLeaValleyjustnorthofLondon.Duringthe1950sandearly1960s,Italianworkerswere alsorecruitedintotheSouthWalessteelworksandintothemines. Womenworkerswerealsorecruitedonafairlylargescaleunderthe"OfficialItalianScheme." Theycametoworkincottonandwoolmills,inrubberandpotteryindustries,andasdomestics inhospitals,untiltheschemewasphasedoutin1951.Anotherdimensionofmigrationinthis periodwasthearrivalinBritainof"warbrides,"someofwhommarriedPolisharmycombatants basedinItaly.Sincetheimmediatepostwarperiod,thepatternofemploymentformanyItalian migrantshaschanged.Somewomeninparticularhavefoundworkinnewerindustries(Crisp, 1980).ManyItalianmenhaveoptedforselfemployment,particularlyinthecateringindustry, openingrestaurants,coffeebars,fishandchipshops,orrunningicecreamvans.Othershave startedsmalltailoring,hairdressing,orgrocerybusinesses. ItwasonlyafterthewholeoftheItalianpeninsula,Sardinia,andSicilycameunderasingle governmentinthemidnineteenthcenturythattheFlorentineliterarystandardbegantobemore widelyacceptedasthenationallanguage,lalinguaitaliana.OtherItalianvarietiesweredemoted tothestatusofdialettiastatusstillresentedbymanyoftheirspeakerstoday. ThedevelopmentofapubliceducationsysteminItalyslowlyspreadtheuseofthenational language,althoughintheruralareasregionalvarietiescontinuetobewidelyusedamongthe oldergeneration,andStandardItalianisstillverymuchasecondlanguage.StandardItalianis usedfluentlyonlybythewelleducatedforreading,writing,andwidercommunication.The developmentoftravel,internalmigration,andthemassmediainparticulararecurrently extendingtheuseofStandardItalianthroughoutItaly.However,neitherItalianswhomigratedto theUnitedKingdomintheimmediatepostwarperiodnortheirchildrenhavehadthebenefitof suchexposure.Theytendtoknowonlythelocalruralvarietyoftheregionoforigin,with importantconsequencesforthemothertongueclassesorganizedinEngland(Tosi,1984). ThemostsignificantperiodofmigrationfromPortugaltoBritainwasduringthe1960s. Individualsandfamiliescameinsearchofworkhere,someasaresultofeconomichardshipin Madeira.Otherscameasaresultofthesocialdisruptionandincreaseddemandonresources causedbythearrivalinLisbonofrefugeesfromthecolonialwars.Thedateofthemainperiod ofmigrationmeansthatthispopulationwaspredominantlymiddleagedby1981.About twothirdsofPortuguesespeakersinEnglandarebasedintheGreaterLondonarea,withsmaller numbersintownstothewestofLondon,inthenorthofEngland,andinsomeholidayresort areas.OutsideLondonthemostimportantsettlementhasbeeninJerseyandGuernsey,anda seasonalmigrationcomeseveryyeartotheChannelIslandsbetweenMarchandOctober. Untilthemid1960s,therewasapreponderanceofwomeninthismigrantlaborforce.Some foundworkinhotelsinLondon'sWestEndorinresortareas, 232

butthemajoritywentintohospitalanddomesticservicesascleaners,cooks,andmaids.Bythemid 1970s,themalefemaleratiohadevenedout,butthepatternofemploymentremainedthesame. ItisconvenienttotreatspeakersofGreekandTurkishinBritaintogetherforsomepurposes.Thisis so,first,becausemostofthespeakersofthesetwolanguagesinBritain,incontrasttoGermanyor Scandinavia,forexample,havetheirfamilyoriginsnotinmainlandGreeceorTurkey,butin Cyprus.Therearethereforemanysimilaritiesintheirculturalbackgrounds,aswellasintheir situationintheUnitedKingdom.Second,censusandotherofficialstatisticsoftenprovide informationonacountryofbirthbasis,whichoffersnowayofdistinguishingbetweenGreek speakingCypriotsandTurkishspeakingCypriots. CyprusbecameanindependentrepublicwithintheBritishCommonwealthin1960,havingbeen underBritishcontrolforlessthanahundredyears.ThisfollowedthreecenturiesofOttoman Turkishrule.ThepopulationatthetimeofindependencewasapproximatelyfourfifthsGreek speaking,onefifthTurkishspeaking,withsmallerArmenianandMaronitecommunitiesanda substantialcontinuingBritishpresence.ItisgenerallythoughtthattheproportionsofGreekand TurkishspeakerswithintheUKpopulationcorrespondroughlytothatratio(Oakley,1970;Anthias, 1983). ThesettlementfromCypruscanbeseeninthreemainstages:asmallpreWorldWarIImigration; themajormigrationbetween1945and1962,followedbyasharpreductionafterthe1962 ImmigrationAct;andthemostrecentmajormovementaftertheTurkishinterventionof1974.Both GreekandTurkishCypriotshavesettledmostlyintheGreaterLondonarea. R.Oakley(1970)reportedthatintheearlystagesofmigrationinthe1950sand1960s,Greek Cypriotswereworkingintheservicesectorincatering,inhotels,intheclothingandshoe manufacturingindustries,inhairdressing,andingroceryretailing.TurkishCypriotsseemtohave followedasimilarpattern.TheeconomicactivitiesofCypriotwomeninparticularhavechanged quiteradicallysincemigration(Anthias,1983). From1967onwards,manymoreCypriotmenbecameselfemployedanddiversifiedintodifferent typesofsmallbusinesses,oftenprovidinggoodsandservicesprimarilyforotherCypriots (Constantinides,1977).Still,comparativelyfewyoungerCypriotsaremovingintoprofessional occupationssuchasteachers,socialworkers,lawyers,accountants,andarchitects. Notsurprisingly,giventheirgeographicalandlatterlypoliticalseparationfromthe"mother countries,"andtheirdifferenthistoryoflanguagecontacts,thevarietiesofbothGreekandTurkish spokeninCyprus,andsubsequentlyinBritainbythoseofCypriotorigin,aresignificantlydifferent fromthemainlandstandardlanguages.ThecontinuedeconomicinteractionbetweenGreekand TurkishCypriotsinBritain,inthecontextofwhichTurksmoreoftendependforworkandservices onGreeksthanviceversaisreflectedinquitewidespreadknowledgeofGreekamongTurks,but rarelyofTurkishamongGreeks. PolishandUkrainianarethetwomainEasternEuropeanlanguagesspoken 233

inEngland.TherewerealreadyafewthousandPolesinBritaininthe1930s,butthemainPolish settlementbeganasagovernmentandarmedforcesinexile,whicharrivedinBritainafterthefallof FranceinJune1940. OfthequarterofamillionmembersofthePolishforcesintheWestin1945aboutfourfifthscame toBritain,althoughnotallofthemsettledtherefinally.Theywerelaterjoinedbysurvivorsofthe Germanconcentrationcamps,prisonersofwar,familiesofmilitarypersonnel,andpeoplefromthe displacedpersonscampsinGermany.ConcentrationsofPolishspeakersdevelopedaroundthe differentcampsandhostelssetuptoprovideaccommodationinareaswherelaborwasneeded.By 1960,regionalsettlementpatternshadcrystallized,withthelargestPolishsettlementinLondonand othersizableconcentrationsintheMidlandsandthenorthofEngland. Fromthemid1950s,theimprovementofEastWestrelationshasledtothearrivalofacertain numberof"newimmigrants,"twothirdsofthemwomen,whichhastosomedegreealleviatedthe earliersexratioimbalanceinfavorofmen. ThegreatmajorityofUkrainianssettledinBritainafterWorldWarII.Inthemid1950suptohalf oftheUkrainiansinBritainwerestilllivinginvariouskindsofhostels,ahighproportionofthem engagedinagriculturalwork.NearlyhalfnowliveindifferentareasintheEastMidlandsandthe northofEngland,andtherestinsmallnumbershavesettledintherestofthecountry.Manyofthe olderBritishUkrainianswereborninterritorythatwasthenpartofPoland,andhaveaknowledge ofPolish. THEMOTHERTONGUEDEBATE InEngland,thedebateaboutbilingualismandschoolinghasbeenrestricted,withfewexceptions,to theissueofmothertongueteaching.Thetermmothertongueisparticularlyunfortunate.Inmany cases,thelanguagetaughtasmothertongueisnotidenticalwiththehomevernacular.Insome cases,thelanguageofreligion,thelanguageofnationalorigin,orthelinguafrancaarelinguistically closetothesocalledmothertongue,andinothercasesnot.Evenwherethese"community languages"aredistinct,thereremainsocialandeducationalargumentsfortheirsupport.Some communitylanguagesarelanguagesofliteracyorofformalschoolinstructionintheparents' countriesoforigin.Butitisalsoimportanttorememberthatmanymembersoflinguisticminorities inEnglandaremultilingual,usingtheirdifferentlanguagesfordifferentfunctions,andthatthe valueofdifferentelementsintheirrepertoireischangingwithdifferentpatternsofethnicrelations. TheonlytypesofbilingualeducationschemesthathavebeendiscussedatallwidelyinEnglandare thosewithatransitionalobjective.Themothertonguedebatehas,therefore,focusedalmost exclusivelyontheteachingofthenewerminoritylanguagesascurriculumsubjectsratherthanon theiruseasmediaofinstruction.Thedebatehasalsotendedtofocusontheteachingofbilingual 234

children,neglectingthepotentialformonolingualEnglishspeakerstoparticipateinbilingual schemes. Severalreasonshavealreadybeensuggestedforthissituation.First,theinitialresponsetothe languageeducationofbilingualpupilswastoconcentrateontheacquisitionofEnglishasasecond languageandtoignorethepupils'firstlanguageskills.Giventhepredominantlyassimilationistand monolingualattitudesprevailinginEngland,itwasunderstandablethatfewteachersrealizedthe valueof,orcouldprovidesupportfor,firstlanguagedevelopmentasafirmerfoundationforsecond languageacquisition.Second,thetwomainforcesthatledtoawiderpublicdebateonmother tongueteachinginthelate1970sdidnotinitiallydefinetheissueasoneinvolvingallpupils.The demandfromminorityassociationsandmothertongueteachersforsupportformothertongue teachingarosefromtheirexistingexperienceoftryingtomeetdemandwithveryfewresources. Teachersworkingforaneducationsystemthatwouldreflectthemulticulturalcompositionof societyarguedthatthisinvolvednotonlytherecognitionoflinguisticdiversityinschool,butalso theteachingoftheselanguagesforbilingualpupils. Oncethefullerimplicationsofthelanguageeducationofbilingualchildrenwereappreciated,more teachersandresearchersrecognizedparallelissuesinthelanguageeducationofbidialectalpupils. Manyoftheseissueshadbeenunderdiscussionforyearsforexample,thetransitionfromspoken vernaculartostandardliteracy,andthebestmethodsforteachingmodernlanguages.Butthis realizationdidnot,ofcourse,solvethepracticalproblemsoftimetabling,northemore fundamentalissuesofcrossingprofessionalsubdivisions(EnglishasaMotherTongue,Englishasa SecondLanguage,ModernLanguages,etc.).Theintroductionofmothertongueteachingatthe secondarylevelraisedmajorproblemswithregardtoteachertraining,materialsdevelopment,and appropriateexaminations(Reid,1984).Butoneofthemostfundamentalhurdlestobeovercome involvestheopeningupofthisprovisiontoallpupils,aspartoftheresponsetotheargumentsfor offeringawiderrangeofmodernlanguages. Attheprimarylevel,theintroductionofmothertongueprovisionnecessitatestherecruitmentof bilingualteachersbut,aslongastransitiontoEnglishisseenbyschoolsastheprimaryobjective, supportforminorityliteracyisunlikelytobegivenhighpriority.Discussionaboutprovisionatthe primaryleveldevelopedintheearly1980sandwasenrichedbytheexperienceoftheMOTET projectinBradford.Theargumentsforsupportingthisteachingthroughthemothertongueincluded referencetotheimportanceof(1)smoothingthetransitionfromhometoschoolandavoidingthe impositionofunfairdisadvantageatacriticalstageofschooling;(2)encouragingthechild'sgeneral conceptualdevelopmentandavoidingasuddencurtailmentofacademicandcognitiveskills becauseofinadequateEnglish;and(3)providingasoundbaseinthechild'sfirstlanguageto facilitateacquisitionofthesecondlanguage(MOTET,1981). Anotherreasonwhythedebateonmothertongueteachingfocusedonprovisionforbilingual children(ratherthanbilingualeducationforallpupilsin 235

thoseschoolsinEnglandwithahighpercentageofpupilsfromasinglenonEnglishlanguage background)wasthatmanybilingualpupilswerealreadylosingtheirlanguageskills.Eveninareas wherebilingualpupilshadenvironmentalsupportfortheirminoritylanguage,manywerenot becomingliterateandfewweretakingexaminationsintheselanguages.Increasingnumbersof parentsandteacherssawonlytheurgentshorttermneedstorescuetheirownchildren'scommand oftheirlanguageswhich,ifmet,wouldmakelessseriousthelongtermconsequencesthatmightbe facedbyyoungadultswhohadlosttheircommandofavaluedpersonalresource. InmanypartsofEnglandtoday,ahighpercentageofbilingualpupilsareusingtwoormore languagesintheirdailylives(whichseemstobethemostsociallyappropriatedefinitionofbeing bilingual),butwheretheyarenotnecessarilyfluentspeakersoftheirsocalledmothertongue.This meansthatovertimeanincreasingamountofmothertongueteachinginsecondaryschoolswillbe startingfromanelementarystage,unlesspupilshavehadagoodgroundingattheprimarylevelin LEAschoolsorcommunityrunclasses.Althoughthispresentsparticularproblemsforcurriculum developmentandteachertraining,italsoprovidesallpupilswiththeopportunitytolearnoneofthe minoritylanguages. Thesesuggestionspresupposeaconcentrationofspeakersfromonelanguagebackground,whichis thecaseinmanyschoolsindifferentpartsofthecountry.Theyalsomaketheassumptionthatthere arenativeEnglishspeakingpupilswhowouldwanttoparticipateinsuchschemes.Thisisavital factorinthecontextofconsiderableprejudiceandantagonismfelttowardmembersofminoritiesin manyareasofthecountry.AlreadytherearecasesofnativeEnglishspeakersattendingmother tongueclassesduringandafterregularschoolhours,butoneofthegreatestchallengesistoensure thatmonolingualaswellasbilingualparentsaregiventheopportunitytoconsidertheadvantagesof theirchildrenbecomingbilingual.Thisisnotanachievementnormallyexpectedtoemergefrom modernlanguageteachingatthesecondaryschoollevel,butinmanyareasofEnglandnowpupils havethepossibilityofusingthesenewerminoritylanguagesintheirdailylives,andthereisarange ofEuropeanandnonEuropeanminoritylanguagesthatareimportantforprofessional,business, socialandleisureservices,andsecretarialworkwithinEnglandandabroad.Muchofthedebatehas beensonarrowlydefinedintermsofindividualbilingualism,however,thatithasassessedthese socialandeconomicadvantagestoonarrowlyintermsoftheneedsofinternationaltradeand diplomacy. Theincreaseincommunityrunlanguageprovisioninnearlyalllinguisticminoritiesoverthelast tenyearsisanobviousindicationofthevitalityofthelanguages,andoftheincreasingdemand. Someschoolsstartedinthe1950sand1960s,butitwasinthe1970sthatmothertongueteachers andorganizersbecamemoreawareoftherangeofprovisionofferedwithintheirownpopulation nationally,andbyotherlinguisticminorities.Organizersofsomeofthefirstconferencesin1976 cametogetherwithotherSouthAsianindividualsandin 236

stitutionsanddiscoveredaparallelgroupthatwasdevelopingamongSouthEuropeanteachersor organizers.AlthoughEmbassyrunprovisionopenedupadifferentsetoforganizational problems,thesegroupsfoundmanycommondifficultiesandissuesthatneededtobeconsidered. ThetwogroupsmergedintotheCoordinatingCommitteeforMotherTongueTeaching,which hassincebecometheNationalCouncilforMotherTongueTeaching. Asmembersoflinguisticminoritiesincreasinglyarticulatedtheirdemandsformoresupport fromtheLEAs,thewiderdiscussionsabouteducationforamulticulturalsocietykepttheissue alive.Whenthedebateshiftedfrommothertongueteachingatthesecondaryleveltotheuseof themothertongueattheprimarylevel,morepeoplecametorecognizetheimportanceof languageineducationgenerally.TherehavealsobeensignsthatmoreEnglishasaSecond Language(ESL)teachershavebeguntorecognizethatmothertongueteachingistheotherside oftheESLcoin.(ThisisalsoincreasinglyapparenttoteachersworkinginadultESL.Some modernlanguageteacherstoohavecometoappreciatethepotentialandthepractical difficultiesofwideningtherangeofmodernlanguages.) Whilealloftheseinitiativessuggestapictureofincreasingactivityandinterest,therehavebeen majorconstraintsonconsolidatingtheexpertiseandinterestgenerated.Withinmanyminority populations,thereistheproblemofinternalcommunicationandaconstantbattleforresourcesto maintainanddevelopprovision.Boththesedifficultiesdivertenergyawayfromorganizationand representation.WithintheLEAschoolsystemsthelackofappropriateteachersandmaterials, thebuiltinresistanceoftheorganizationalstructure,andtheattitudesofkeypersonnelhave oftendiscouragedinitiatives.ExamplesofsystematiccollaborationbetweenLEAand communityrunschoolsarefew,butrepresentsomeofthemostwelldevelopedschemes. Althoughmanyoftheselocalinitiativeshavehadlittlepublicity,therehasalsobeenverylittle guidanceorencouragementfromthecentralgovernment. TheBullockreportin1975stressedtheimportanceofbilingualism: Inalinguisticallyconsciousnationinthemodernworld,weshouldseemother tongueasanasset,assomethingtobenurtured,andoneoftheagenciesthatshould nurtureitistheschool.Certainlytheschoolshouldadoptapositiveattitudetoits pupils'bilingualismandwheneverpossibleshouldhelpmaintainanddeepentheir knowledgeoftheirmothertongue(Chapter20). TheDESdocumentTheSchoolsCurriculum(HMSO,1981)didnotdiscussthedifferent curriculumoptionsandimplicationsinvolvedindevelopingthevaluableresourceofpupilswith firstlanguagesotherthanEnglishorWelsh,althoughitraisedthequestion: FarmorepupilsthaninthepasthaveafirstlanguagewhichisnotEnglishorWelsh. Thisconstitutesavaluableresource,forthemandforthenation.Howshouldmother 237

tongueteachingforsuchpupilsbeaccommodatedwithinmodernlanguageprovisionsothatthis resourcedoesnotwitherawayandthepupilsmayretaincontactswiththeirowncommunities? TheFifthReportfromtheHomeAffairsCommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsonRacial Disadvantagemadeseveralinconsistentreferencestotheteachingofminoritylanguagesinthe schoolsystem(HomeAffairs,1981): Wearenotconvincedeitherthatalocaleducationauthorityisunderanyobligationto providemothertongueteachingorthatitisnecessarilyinthegeneralinterestthatthey shoulddoso.(Para151) Thisdoesnotmeanthecaseishopeless.Formanyyearseducationinsomepartsof WaleshasbeencarriedonwhollyorpartlyinWelsh.(Para150) ...wefeelthatsomegreatereffortstoensurethatthesecondaryschoolcurriculum respondstothepresenceofethnicminoritypupilswouldbeadvisable,forexampleby encouragingtheteachingofAsianlanguageswithinthemodernlanguagescurriculum. (Para115) Theonlysubstantialexternalimpetustothemothertonguedebatehascomenotfromthecentral government,butfromtheEuropeanCommunities(EC)DirectiveontheEducationofMigrant Workers'Children(EC,1977).AlthoughtheBritishgovernmentsuccessfullyobjectedin1976tothe inclusionofanindividualrighttomothertongueteachingwhichwaswrittenintotheoriginaldraft oftheDirective,itmadeclearthattheDirectiveshouldbeappliedinprincipletoallpupils,whether ornottheirfamiliescamefromothermemberstates.Thisprovidedanimportantextensiontothe scopeoftheDirective.Oneofthemostnotablefeaturesofthedebateinthemid1970saboutthe draftDirectivewasthelackofinformationandunderstandingoftheissueamongmostofthe officialbodieswhowererespondingtoitsformulation.EvennowtheDES'sresponsetotheECon ArticleIIIoftheDirectiveshowstheneedforamorereliabledatabase.Thesubmissionconfuses ethnicandlanguagestatistics,andtheestimatesofnumbersofchildrenreceivingmothertongue teachingseemlowincomparisonwithourownfigures.(SeeLMP/CLEWorkingPaperNo.6, 1984.) Manyparentsmayatpresentoptforcommunitybasedprovisionbecausetheydonotknowofthe possibilityofintroducingmothertongueprovisioninLEAschools,orareskepticalaboutthe reasonsforproposalstodoso.However,thisdoesnotmeanthattheyarehappywiththequalityor focusofthecommunityrunschools.Somemothertongueteachersincommunitybasedclassesare infavorofLEAschoolstakingoverthisresponsibilitysothatitbecomesmoreeffectiveandsothat ithasanimpactontheschoolsystemasawhole.Forsome,thiswouldmeanthattheycould concentratetheirworkontheculturalorreligiousprovision,orprovidesupplementarylanguage supportbeyondthefewhoursofferedintheLEAschools. Thereisaneedforinformationforalleducationalistsinvolved.Thebuildingofatrustingand collaborativelinkwithparentsisdependentontheteachers' 238

andadministrators'knowledgeoftheparents'pointsofviewandofthespecificlanguagesin question. THERESEARCHOFTHELINGUISTICMINORITIESPROJECT ThemainobjectiveoftheLinguisticMinoritiesProject(LMP)wastostudypatternsofbilingualism inselectedregionsofthecountry.Ourtwomainaimsweretohighlighttheeducationalimplications ofthissocietalbilingualismandtoprovideabaselineforfutureworkonthenewerminority languagesofEngland.Wehopedtocontributetowardtheoreticalandmethodologicaldevelopments, aswellasleaveagoodexampleofhowresearchandapplicationcanbecloselyintegrated,through strategiesforactivedisseminationandresearchinstrumentswithbuiltinpedagogicuses. WhenLMPstarted,therewasanotablelackofeasilyavailableinformationabouttheminority languagesofEngland,andlittlediscussionaboutthesocialpolicyimplicationsofwidespread bilingualisminEngland.Discussionamongeducationalistsfocusedonarathernarrowrangeof questionsaboutmothertongueteachingforbilingualpupils.Therehasalsobeenlittleacademic workonthesociolinguisticcharacteristicsoflinguisticminoritiesinEngland,incontrasttothe fairlysubstantialresearchontheindigenouslanguagesofWalesandScotland. TheLMPwasfundedbytheDepartmentofEducationandScience(DES)andbasedatthe UniversityofLondonInstituteofEducationfromSeptember1979toApril1981. TheinitialfocusoftheDES'sinterestinlinguisticminoritiesinEnglandwasonchildrenand schools.Theassessmentofimmediatepolicyissuesandpracticalinitiativesalreadyunderway necessitatedsomecomprehensivedataontherangeofminoritylanguagesknownbychildreninthe schoolgoingpopulation,andonthescopeoftheirknowledge.Therewasalsointerestinthenumber ofthesepupilswhoalreadyattendedsomeformofmothertongueteachingandinthecontentand organizationofthisprovision.TheDESthoughtitwasimportanttogatherthisinformationfromas largeanumberofLEAsaspossibletoensurethatourfindingsreflectedtheverydifferentsituations indifferentpartsofthecountry.Policymakerswouldthenbemorelikelytorecognizetheirown situationinouroverallassessments. Whilenotdenyingtheneedforbasicdatatoinformdevelopmentsinpolicyandpedagogy,we thoughtthatdatareferringtochildreninthestateschoolsystemshouldbecomplementedwithan understandingoflanguageuseinthepupils'neighborhoods,includingdetailsofadultlanguageuse andcommunityrunmothertongueschoolsandclasses. FromthebeginningoftheProject,wearguedthatweshouldpayfullattentiontothewholerangeof linguisticminoritiesinEngland.Fortwoofoursurveys,thismeantworkingwithbilingual interviewersfromarangeofSouthandEastern 239

 EuropeanandSouthandEastAsianminorities.Foroneofthesesurveys,itmeanttranslatingour questionnaireintoelevendifferentlanguages.Similarly,wewereconvincedthatdataonthe numberofchildrenoradultsreportingcertainspokenorliteracyskillswereoflittlerelevancefor educationalorsocialpolicy,withoutanaccompanyingunderstandingofwhatwashappeningto thelanguagesineverydaylife.Forthisweneededtoknowwhenpeoplewereusingtheir otherthanEnglishlanguagesandwhatvaluetheyhadfortheirspeakers.Withoutthisbasic understandingofthesocialcontext,therewouldbenowayinwhichresearchers,policymakers, orteacherscouldassessthelikelytrendsoflanguageuseamonglinguisticminoritiesinthe future. Inourearlydiscussionsontheaimsandcontentofourresearch,wefrequentlyreturnedtotwo themes.Onerelatedtoourdependencyonsurveydata,basedonadults'orpupils'ownreportsof theirlanguageuseorskills,ratherthanobservationsofwhatactuallyhappened.Weacceptedthat thiskindoflargescalesurveywasneededtoinformpolicyandbuildupdatafordeveloping hypothesesforfutureresearch.Wewerewellawareofthedifficultiesofcarryingoutlargescale surveysinarelativelysensitivefieldininnercityareasandamongofteninsecurerespondents. Wealsobelievedthattheonlyvaluableandfeasiblewayofdoingtheschoolsbasedsurveys, whichoftendependedonthecooperationofteachersworkingunderpressure,involvedusing approachesthatwouldprovideimmediateinterestvaluefortheteachersandlongertermvalue fortrainersandadvisers. Thesecondthemethatpreoccupiedusinourearlydiscussionsrevolvedaroundoursenseof socialresponsibility,andourreceptivitytotheneedsofthosewhocontributedtoourfindings. Wewereawareoftheattitudesofsometeacherstowardresearchwhoseoutcomeneverappeared tohelpthemintheirdailydifficulties.Wewerealsoconsciousoftheneedtoprovidetoolsthat LEAscouldtakeoverthemselves,toinformpolicyandtouseforinservicetraining.Mostofall, wethoughtweunderstoodthefrustrationsofsomanyminorityteachersandcommunityworkers, whooftensawnosignofofficialrecognitionoftheirproblemsorawillingnesstotacklethem. Whilewediscussedtherelativeurgencyoftheseneeds,andourmostappropriatecontributions bothshortandlongterm,weknewthatafullresponsetolocaldemandswouldprobablyrestrict ourresearchtooneareaonly.Itwasatthisstagethatwediscussedthepossibilityofsettingupa parallelresearchprojectandbecameinvolvedinactivelydisseminatingthefindingsofour research,inparticulartoallthosewhohadcontributedtothedata.TheLINCProjectwasfunded bytheCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesfromJanuary1981forfouryears. Thecommunitybasedresearchstrategieswhichweadoptedcompensatedinsomewaysforour inabilitytofollowtheidealpaththeundertakingofneighborhoodbased,indepthstudies beforewedevelopedoursurveyinstruments.Eachofthefoursurveyswhichwediddevelop couldhavebeenthefocusofanindependentthreeyearprojectinsuchanewareaofresearch,so wereluctantlyputasidetheobservationalstudiesprojects.Thefinaldesignadoptedforour 240

researchdoesinfactallowanevaluationoftheappropriatenessofasmallernumberofdifferent researchmethods,butwewerenotabletouseaswidearangeaswehadinitiallyenvisaged. Weestablishedthreeimportantprinciplesintheearlydaysofourresearch.First,weaimedalways tocountertheprevailingviewthatourwork,andthemothertonguedebate,wasaboutSouthAsian languagesonly.Second,wewantedtoshowthatpolicydecisionsneedtobebasedonan understandingofthesociolinguisticcontext,andnotjustonthenumericaldata.Throughthiswider approachtobilingualisminsociety,wehopedtoremindmanyteachers,policymakers,andparents thateducationisnotonlyamatterofschooling.Finally,wewerekeentoberesponsivetoallthose involvedintheresearchprocess.Weworkedfromtheprinciplesthatallparticipantshavearightof accesstothedatatheyhelptocollect,andthatresearchersneedtodevelopwaysofensuringthat accessandofencouragingfeedbackfromparticipantsintheresearchprocesstoguidefuturework. Twoofthesurveyinstruments,theSchoolsLanguageSurvey(SLS)andtheSecondaryPupils Survey(SPS),focusedontheschoolgoingpopulation,andtheiradministrationinvolvedclass teachersaswellasbothbilingualandmonolingualpupilsintheclass. TheSchoolsLanguageSurvey(SLS)aimedtodocumenttherangeoflinguisticdiversityinaLocal EducationAuthority(LEA)andtheextentofliteracyineachminoritylanguage;itwascarriedout byLMPinfiveLEAs.Thefindingsshowvaryingproportionsofthechildrensurveyedreporting spokenskillsinaminoritylanguage(fromabout7percentinthePeterboroughDivisionof Cambridgeshiretoover30percentintheLondonBoroughofHaringey),andaconsistent40to50 percentofthesepupilsineachLEAreportingsomeliteracyskillsinaminoritylanguage.The combinationsoflanguagesfoundintheschoolpopulationindifferentareasvaryconsiderably,but usuallythemostfrequentthreeorfourlanguagesaccountforatleasttwothirdsofthebilingual pupilsinanAuthority(LMP/LINCWorkingPaperNo.3,1983).Suchfindingshaveimportant implicationsforthedevelopmentoflanguagepoliciesthataimtopromotethelearningofminority languagesbymanymorepupils,bilingualandmonolingual.Theyindicatethescaleofthetaskand thepotentialforpositiveaction.ASchoolsLanguageSurveyManualofUsenowprovidesthe opportunityfortheSLStobeusedmorewidely,andoffersanencouragementforLEAstoupdate theirfindingsatregularintervals. TheotherschoolbasedsurveyinstrumentdevelopedbytheLMPwastheSecondaryPupilsSurvey (SPS).Thequestionnairewasoriginallydevelopedforuseinasamplesurvey,examininginmore detailthanwaspossiblewiththeSLSthelanguageuseandperceptionoflinguisticdiversityamong secondaryschoolpupils.Itspotentialasteachingmaterialandasameansofpromotinglanguage awareness,especiallyamongmonolingualpupilsandteachers,ledtoachangeoffocusinitsuse. Thequestionnairewaseventuallyproducedinanillustratedformatandwasmadeavailablefor individualteacherstouseinthe 241

classroomwithasetofaccompanyingteachers'guidelines.IncollaborationwiththeILEATV Centre,LMP/LINCproducedavideoprogramaboutoneapproachtousingtheSPSwithaclass: thisprogramisentitled"SharingLanguagesintheClassroom"andisnowavailable. ThesurveysrevealedaclearpatternamongbilingualpupilswhichsuggestedthatEnglishwasused mostofthetimewiththeyoungergeneration,whilethemothertongueswereusedmoreoftenwith parentsandgrandparents.Therewerealsosomeindications,atleastinBradford,thattheminority languageswereusedmorewhenspeakingtofemales,forexample,mothersandsisters,thanto males. TheapparenttendencyamongtheseyoungerbilingualadolescentstousemoreEnglish,orboth theirlanguages,withtheirsiblingsshouldnotbeinterpretedasanindicationoftheirlanguageloss, norindeedofageneralpatternoflanguageshiftamongallBritishbornmembersofalllinguistic minorities.Aschildrenfromlinguisticminoritiesgrowup,andparticularlyduringtheirschool years,thepressuresfromthepredominantlymonolingualmonoculturalmajority,intermsofboth languageuseandmoregeneralpatternsofbehavior,areverydifficulttoresist.Thesepressurescan takemanydifferentforms:absenceofreference,orevencovertorovertopposition,totheir"home" languageandcultureinandaroundtheschool;theallpervadingandcompellinginfluenceofthe Englishmediummediawithinaswellasoutsidetheirhome;and,ofcourse,amongtheirpeer group.Moreover,manychildrenfromlinguisticminoritiesexperienceracismandbecome increasinglyconsciousofthelowersocioeconomicstatusofmanyethnicorlinguisticminorities theyseearoundthem.Intheirearlyteenageyears,whenmostchildrengothroughaperiodof oppositiontoadultsintheirimmediateenvironmentandtendtolookforpsychologicalsecurityin termsofconformitywiththepeergroup,adolescentsoftenfinditparticularlydifficulttoresist thosepressures,whichleadthemtoconsidertheirgrandparents'orparents'languageandpatternsof behaviorassomethingtheydonotwanttobeassociatedwith.Someneverthelessdoresist,asthe figuresshow,certainlywithlessdifficultyinplaceswheretherelevantlanguagesarewidelyused outsideaswellasinsidethehome,andwhen,forexample,thechildren'slanguagesaregivenstatus intheschoolbyteachersandtheschoolpersonnelasawhole. Thefirstofourcommunitybasedsurveys,theMotherTongueTeachingDirectorySurvey(MTTD), wasdevelopedtocollectinformationontheexistingprovisionforminoritylanguagesteachingin bothLEAandcommunityrunschoolsandclasses.Throughthissurveyweestablishedthatavery highproportionoftheteachingisatpresentnotsupportedfinanciallyinanywaybyLEAs,orat bestreceivesonlyminimalsupportintheformofreducedcostorfreeteachingaccommodation. Thisisinspiteofthefactthatvirtuallyallofthepupilsattendingtheseclassesarebetweenfiveand sixteenyearsold. TheMTTDSurveywasdevelopedinclosecollaborationwiththeNationalCouncilforMother TongueTeachingintheexpectationthataftertheendoftheLMPtheywouldbeabletopromotethe surveythroughoutthecountry,witha 242

databanksetupattheCentreforInformationonLanguageTeachingandResearchinLondon. TheMTTDsurveysinCoventry,Bradford,andHaringeywerecarriedoutwiththehelpof bilingualinterviewersfromthelocallinguisticminorities,whoprovidedveryimportantinputto theresearch.OneofthefindingsfromthethreeMTTDsurveysisthatthemajorityofthemother tongueclassesinthethreeareastakenasawhole(83percentinHaringey,74percentin Bradford,and32percentinCoventry)hadnosupportfromtheLEAforteachers'salariesor accommodationatthetimeofthesurvey.Evenwhenschoolsorclasseswerereceivingpartial support,usuallyitwasonlyintheformoffreeorsubsidizedaccommodation,andtheywerestill oftenrunbylocalcommunityorganizationsoroverseasgovernmentagencies.Evenmanyofthe classeswithinthecurriculumofLEAschoolsandwithteacherspaidbytheLEAweresetup throughtheinitiativeandperseveranceofabilingualteacheronthestaffofthoseschools( LMP/CLEWorkingPaperNo.6,1984).TheAdultLanguageUseSurvey(ALUS)alsoinvolveda communitybasedresearchstrategy,inwhichLMPcollaboratedwithoverahundredbilingual interviewersinCoventry,Bradford,andHaringeytoconductsometwentyfivehundred interviewsinrespondents'homes.Theinterviewscheduleincludedquestionsaboutlanguage skills,languageuseathomeandatwork,andattitudestolanguageteachingprovision.The interviewswerebasedontranslationsoftheALUSquestionnaireintoelevenlanguages,andwere conductedwithcarefullypreparedsamplesineachofthethreeareasmentioned.Fromthe resultingmassofdata(whichwillbemorefullyanalyzedbytheCommunityLanguagesand EducationProject,oneofthesuccessorprojectstoLMP),onlyfourpointsarementionedhere: 1. Themultilingualismofahighproportionofrespondents,notonlyamongtherespondentsof SouthAsianorigin. 2. Thehighproportionsofthosewhohadarealchoiceintermsoftheirreportedlanguage skillsandwhousedtheminoritylanguageindomesticsettings. 3. Thestrongsupportevidentamongallthelocallinguisticminoritiesforanincreased contributionfromtheLEAstomothertongueprovision. 4. Importantdifferencesbetweenrespondentsofthesamelinguisticminorityindifferentcities intermsoflanguageskillsandlanguageuse,whichsuggestthatitisessentialtolookin somedetailatlocalhistorical,demographic,social,andeconomicfactorsinorderto understandthedynamicsofbilingualism. CONCLUSIONS BilingualmembersofBritishsociety,fromwhateversocioeconomicbackground,havelinguistic repertoiresthatoftenconsistofseveraldifferentvarietiesofEnglishaswellasarangeof varietiesintheirmothertongues.NewvarietiesofEnglishandofmanyoftheotherlanguages areemergingamongadolescents,reflectingtheirdistinctivepatternsofsocializationandsocial interaction.Asa 243

consequence,bilingualchildrenoftenexperiencethesameimposeddisadvantageastheir monolingualEnglishspeakingpeersofworkingclassorcertainregionalorCaribbeanorigins,if theschoolstheyattendpromotetheexclusiveuseofSouthernBritishStandardEnglish.Explicitor implicitschoollanguagepoliciesstillalmostalwaysmeanthatbilingualchildreninEnglanddonot havetheopportunitytousethelanguageoftheirparentsatschool.Onlyrarelyaretheselanguages consideredasaidstolearning,aslegitimatemeansofexpression,orasexaminationsubjectsof equalstatuswithotherlanguages. Thealmosttotalchangeinpatternsoflanguageusefromthehometoschoolenvironmentislikely toholdbacknotonlythelinguisticandconceptual,butalsothegeneraleducationaldevelopmentof manybilingualchildren.Evenwhenthehomeschoollinguistictransitionisrelativelysuccessfully managed,themonolingualpoliciesinmanyBritishschoolshaveatleasttwodamaging consequences.Mostbilingualyoungstersdonothavetheopportunitytodevelopalltheirearlyoral skillsinmorethanonelanguage,ortoestablishliteracyinthelanguageotherthanEnglish. Similarly,monolingualEnglishyoungstersmisstheopportunityofexperiencingtheuseoftwo languagesasanormalandnaturalphenomenonandofbecominginterestedinthestudyofhow languageandlanguageswork. Thedifferentbalancebetweenthevariouslinguisticminoritiesineachlocalareainevitablymeans differencesindetailedpolicies,andthisisfacilitatedbythedecentralizededucationalsystemin England.Butwhateverpracticesaredevelopedinthenearfuture,thereisgreateducational advantage,eveninpredominantlymonolingualEnglishspeakingschools,inbuildingonwhatever linguisticdiversitythereisintheschool.Itshouldberememberedthatthismayincludepupils' EnglishdialectsaswellaslanguagesotherthanEnglish.Whateverdetailedpoliciesaredeveloped byLEAsintermsofsupportingmothertongueteachinginschoolsorsupportingexisting communityruninitiatives,foralongtimeaheadtherewillbetheneedtosupportandlinkthe resourcesandexpertiselocatedinbothtypesofprovision.Inallcases,thereisaneedforthe developmentofappropriateteachingmaterials,forthetrainingofbilingualteachersfromlinguistic minoritiesandofmonolingualteachersfromtheEnglishspeakingmajority,andformuchmore informationandunderstandingaboutlanguageuseingeneralamongallthemembersofour multilingualsociety. ItseemsunlikelythatbilingualisminEnglandwilldisappearintheforeseeablefuture.Minority languagesareofvaluetotheirspeakersforarangeofreasons:social,psychological,andlinguistic. Themoretheyaredevaluedorignoredincertaincontexts,themoretheyarelikelytodevelopasa resourceforresistingthedominationofEnglish.Thesameprocessesthatrestricttheuseandvalue ofminoritylanguagesalsoworkagainsttherecognitionofregionalorclassbaseddialectsamong "monolinguals."Manyoftheeducationalissuesaresimilartheconsequencesoftransferencefrom onedialectorlanguagetoanotherasthechildentersschool,ortheproblemsofanindividual's developmentfromoralvernacularskillstoliteracyinthestandardlanguage. 244

Thereis,however,amajordifferencebetweenthephenomenaofbidialectalismandbilingualism. WhilemanypeopleofthedifferentregionalculturesofEnglandareusedtoswitchingfromone varietyofEnglishtoanotheraccordingtocontextandcompany,veryfewusetwoquiteseparate languagesintheirdailylives.Englishmonolingualshaveingeneralaratherpoorrecordinlearning foreignlanguagesatschool,andenormoussumsofmoneyarespentannuallyinlanguagelearning foradultsin,forexample,industry,leisure,andthediplomaticservices.Yetmanyoftheethnic minoritycommunitylanguagesinEnglandareatpresentignoredordevaluedasanindividualand societalresource,wheninfacttheirspeakerscouldwithminimalinvestmenthavetheirexisting skillsdevelopedduringtheirschoolyears,andthusofferthecountryaneducational,economic,and politicalresourceofconsiderablevalue.Thevalueofminoritylanguagesliesnotonlyinwhatthey offertothelargenumberofbilingualmembersofBritishsociety.Bilingualismalsooffersthe possibilityofchangingthenarrowlymonolingualperspectiveofmanymajorityinstitutionsand individuals. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ThischapterisbasedontheReportsoftheLinguisticMinoritiesProject,whichwerewrittenjointly byallthemembersoftheresearchteam(XavierCouillaud,MarilynMartinJones,VeritySaifullah Khan,AnnaMorawska,EuanReid,andGregSmith).Theresearcherswouldalsoliketo acknowledgetheassistanceoftheAssistantProgrammerandofthesecretarialcolleaguesonthe team.TheReportoftheLinguisticMinoritiesProject(seeLMP,1983)andthebookoftheproject (seeLMP,1984)givesdetailsofthefindingsanddiscussionofthesociolinguisticandeducational issuesreferredtointhischapter. BIBLIOGRAPHY AnthiasF.1983."SexualDivisionandEthnicAdaptation:TheCaseofGreekCypriotWomen."In OneWayTicket:MigrationandFemaleLabour,ed.A.Phizacklea.London:RoutledgeandKegan Paul. BullockReport.1975.LanguageforLife.London:HMSO. ConstantinidesP.1977."TheGreekCypriots:FactorsintheMaintenanceofEthnicIdentity."In BetweenTwoCultures:MigrantsandMinoritiesinBritain,ed.J.L.Watson.Oxford:Blackwell. CrispS.1980."AStudyoftheEffectsofMigrationonaSouthItalianHillVillageandonthe MigrantsThemselves."Ph.D.thesis,UniversityofCambridge. DaviesN.1981.God'sPlayground:AHistoryofPoland.London:OxfordUniversityPress. EC(EuropeanCommunities).1977.CouncilDirectiveontheEducationofChildrenofMigrant Workers:77/486.Brussels:EC. HMSO.1981.TheSchoolCurriculum.London:HMSO. HomeAffairs.1981.RacialDisadvantage.FifthReportfromtheHomeAffairsCommitteeofthe HouseofCommons.London:HMSO. 245

JonesP.R.1983."VietnameseRefugeesintheUK:TheReceptionProgramme."NewCommunity 10.3. LinguisticMinoritiesProject.1983."TheSchoolsLanguageSurvey:SummaryofFindingsfrom FiveLEAs."LMP/LINCWorkingPaperNo.3.London:LMP,UniversityofLondonInstituteof Education. .1984."TheMotherTongueTeachingDirectorySurveyoftheLinguisticMinoritiesProject." LMP/CLEWorkingPaperNo.6.London:LMP,UniversityofLondonInstituteofEducation. .(Forthcoming).TheOtherLanguagesofEngland.LondonandNewYork:Routledgeand KeganPaul. MotherTongueandEnglishTeachingProject(MOTET).1981.SummaryoftheReport,Vols.1&2. FromDr.O.Rees,UniversityofBradfordorDr.B.Fitzpatrick,BradfordCollege,Bradford, Yorkshire. OakleyR.1970."TheCypriotsinBritain."RaceToday2:99102. ReidE.,ed.1984.MinorityCommunityLanguagesinSchool.London:CILT. RexJ.,andR.Moore.1976.Race,CommunityandConflict:AStudyofSparkbrook.London: OxfordUniversityPress. SaifullahV.Khan1980."The'MotherTongue'ofLinguisticMinoritiesinMulticulturalEngland." JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment1,1:7188. SmithD.J.1977.RacialDisadvantageinBritain.Harmondsworth:Penguin. TosiA.1984.ImmigrationandBilingualEducation:ACaseStudyofMovementofPopulation LanguageChangeandEducationWithintheEuropeanCommunity.Oxford:Pergamon. WatsonJ.L.,ed.1977.BetweenTwoCultures:MigrantsandMinoritiesinBritain.Oxford: Blackwell. WildingJ.1981.EthnicMinorityLanguagesintheClassroom?:ASurveyofAsianParentsin Leicester.LeicesterCouncilforCommunityRelationsandLeicesterCityCouncil. 246

12 SOCIETALBILINGUALISMAND BILINGUALEDUCATION:ASTUDYOF THEINDIANSITUATION R.N.Srivastava ThelanguagesceneinIndiaprovidesauniquemosaicoflinguisticdiversityandheterogeneity.The ageoldcoexistenceofseveralmutuallyunintelligiblelanguageshasmadeIndialinguisticallya complexwhole.India'slinguisticandethniccomplexityhasbeendiscussedfromsystematic, sociological,andcommunicationalperspectivesbyPandit(1972),SouthworthandApte(1974), Kachru(1978),Srivastava(1980a,1980b),ShapiroandSchiffman(1981),Pattanayak(1981),and Khubchandani(1983).However,theextentofitslinguisticheterogeneityandcomplexitycanbe gaugedfromtheIndiancensuswhichcontinuestobetheprimarysourceofinformationonthe prevalenceofmultilingualismintheregion.WhileMitra(1964)providesthepictureoflinguistic heterogeneityasreflectedintherecordingofnumerousmothertonguesinthe1961censusofIndia, Khubchandani(1978)presentsthedistributionofcontactlanguagesandthenatureofcontact patternsbasedonthedatamadeavailableinthe1961census. Thenumberofmothertongues(MTs)asreportedbytheindividualsatthetimeof1961census alongwiththeirfamilyaffiliationisgiveninTable12.1.Thetableshowsthat1,652MTswere reportedbynearly439millionpeople532belongingtotheIndoAryan,148totheDravidian,53to theAustroAsiatic,and227MTstotheSinoTibetanlanguagefamily.Thecategory"Others" includesbothunclassifiedMTswhoseaffiliationtoalanguagefamilycouldnotbeascertainedand languagesofforeignorigin.SincetheseMTsarethenamesthatthecensusreturnsgiveascodes reportedbyindividualsasspokenlanguagesandnottheactuallanguagesordialectsspokenby them,anattemptwasmadeinthecensustoclassifydifferentMTsintolanguages.Asaresult,nearly twohundredlanguagesareestablishedasMTssixtybelongingtotheIndoAryan, 247

Table12.1 NumberofMTsandLanguageFamilies(Source:1951Census) Mothertonguespeakers Families Numberof speakers Lessthan 1,000 1,000and above Numberofmother tongues IndoAryan Dravidian Austro Asiatic SinoTibetan Others (unclassified) Sikkim 321,721 107,411 6,192 3,184 429 356 104 20 111 657 52 14 10 43 17 26 4 2 21 2 55

5,000an above

438,937 1,248 136 IndoAryan,21totheDravidian,20totheAustroAsiaticand95totheSinoTibetanlanguagefamily. 248

twentyonetotheDravidian,twentytotheAustroAsiatic,andninetyfivetotheSinoTibetan languagefamily. BesidestraditionalizingSanskrit,theclassicallanguagewhichisaconstantorthogeneticsourceof changesinmodernIndianlanguages,theEnglishwhichisamodernizingheterogeneticsource, therearefourteenmajorIndianlanguages.TwoofthesefourteenUrduandSindhiarenonstate languagesastheyhavenohometerritoryoftheirown.Ontheotherhand,Hindihassixstates HimachalPradesh,Haryana,Rajasthan,UttarPradesh,MadhyaPradesh,andBihar.Furthermore, outof1,652MTs,nearly400aretriballanguages. ThispanIndianlinguisticheterogeneityisreflectedatalllevelsofsocialandpoliticalorganization. ThefederalorganizationofIndiaembracesbroadlytwelvemajorlanguageareas,eachidentifiedby adistinctlanguagewhosespeakersformadominantpressuregroup.Theselinguisticallyidentified regionsareneitherorganicallyhomogeneousethnicregionsnorfunctionallymonolingual communicationregions.Apartfromthedominantregionallanguage,everyregionisinhabitedby speakersofmorethanoneminoritylanguagespokenbynofewerthantwentypersonsperone thousandpopulation(Khubchandani,1978).ThedominantlanguageofAndhraPradesh,for example,isTelugu,butthereareatleasttwentyotherprominentlanguagesinthearea. AlthoughthemajorityofTeluguspeakersresideintheirhomestate,thatis,AndhraPradesh,a sizablenumberofthemhavespilledoverintocontiguousstates.The1961censusrevealsthatin Tamilnadu,Mysore,Maharashtra,andOrissa,Teluguspeakersnumberthousands,orevenmillions. Similarly,ifwelookatthedistributionofprominentlanguagesofAndhraPradesh,wefindthat apartfromHindiUrdu,thedensityofnonnativespeakersmatchestheorderofthenumberof Teluguspeakersthathavemovedovertootherstates,thatis,Tamil(Tamilnadu),Kannada (Mysore),Marathi(Maharashtra),andOriya(Orissa).(Fordetails,seeSrivastava,1971.)This bidirectionaldiffusionofspeakersofdifferentlanguagesbelongingtodifferentlanguagefamiliesis attestedalloverthecountry.ItiscommonexperiencethatthemigrantspeechcommunitiesofIndia continuetospeaktheirownlanguageinthehomedomainoflanguageuse.ThroughtheirMTs,they endeavortomaintaintheirethnicboundaries.Atthesametime,forthedescendantsofthese migrantsthelanguageofthehostcommunitybeginstoserveasalanguageofwidercommunication inamatterofafewgenerations.Sincebothmigrantspeechcommunityandthehostcommunity agreeonlimitedseparation,thisresultsinculturalpluralism.Thus,whilethemigrantspeech communityretainsitsnativelanguageasaneffectivedeviceforethnicseparatenessandsurvival,it mayacquirethelanguageofthehostcommunityasajobselectlanguage.Suchcasesof"partial shift"intheuseofMT(ratherthan"totalassimilation")areseenalloverIndia,withtheresultthat thereisnotasinglemajorIndianspeechcommunitywhosespeakersdonotemployatleastthree contactlanguages.(Appendix1providesinformationaboutthenumberofMTspeakersofmajor languages,alongwiththenameofthefirstthreecontactlanguageswhichtheyhabituallyemploy duringtheirspeechinter 249

action.)TheIndianUnionatpresentconsistsoftwentytwostatesandnineunionterritories. Eventhoughtheredistributionofstateterritorieswasmotivatedbytheideaofreducingthe numberoflinguisticminoritiesbybringingspeakersofacommonlanguagetogether,notasingle stateofunionterritoryiscompletelyunilingual.(Appendix2showstheadministrativedivisions ofIndiaastheyexistedin1971,withthepopulationandstatisticalstrengthofthethreemost importantlanguagesineachstate.)AsmigrantsdonotusuallylosetheirMTinthetraditional contextofIndia,wefindthepresenceoflinguisticminoritiesinallstatesandunionterritories. ApartfromthespeakersoftribalspeechcommunitieswhoseconcentrationisfoundinManipur, Meghalaya,Nagaland,Tripura,AndamanandNicobarIslands,andArunachalPradesh,thereare minorityspeakersofscheduledlanguagesdistributedalloverIndia.Theintensityofminority languagespeakersvariesfromonestatetoanother,rangingbetween4.96percentinKeralato 84.54percentinNagaland.Thefollowinghaveemergedasthemostsalientfeaturesofthe languageprofileofIndia: 1. DifferentvernacularsofIndiafallunderfourdistinctlanguagefamiliesofIndiaIndoAryan, Dravidian,AustroAsiatic,andSinoTibetanbuttheIndianlinguisticsceneisdominatedby twofamilygroupsIndoAryanandDravidianwithapopulationcovering97.7percentof itspopulation. 2. Majorlanguages(i.e.,languagesspecifiedintheVIIIScheduleoftheIndianConstitution) cover88percentofspeakersinthetotalpopulation.TheVIIIScheduleincludesthe followinglanguages:Assamese,Bengali,Gujarati,Hindi,Kannada,Kashmiri,Malayalam, Marathi,Oriya,Punjabi,Sanskrit,Sindhi,Tamil,andUrdu. 3. Thereappearstobeastatewidedirectcorrelationbetweenthedegreeofheterogeneityin nativepopulationandtheintensityofbilingualism.Therearetwoofficiallanguagesofthe UnionHindi(primary)andEnglish(associate)whichtogethercovermorethanhalfofthe entirebilingualpopulation. 4. Atotalof240dialects,thatis,12percent,havetenthousandormorespeakers,and1,248 dialects,or75percent,havefewerthanathousandspeakers.Thisindicatesthatthereexist numerousdialectsandpocketsoftribalinhabitantswithdistinctethnicbackgroundandthat theyhavenotbeenintegratedtoformalargersuperordinategroup. 5. Differentstatesandunionterritoriesmighthavebeendeclaredunilingual/bilingualfor administrativeconvenience,butbasicallyeachofthemisamultilingualandpluricultural entity. SOCIETALBILINGUALISMANDLANGUAGECONTINUUM ThesuccessivecensusreportsshowthatallmajorlanguagesofIndiafunctionascontact languageswithinand/orbeyondtheirhometerritory.Asalreadypointedout,speakersof differentmigrantspeechcommunitiestendtomaintain 250

theirethnic(home)languageandalsolearntospeakthedominantregionallanguage,thusproviding acaseofsocietalbilingualism.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatIndia'sgrassrootsbilingualismis muchmorethanthisimmigrantbilingualism.Itistruethatmigrantsdonotentirelygiveuptheuse oftheirnativelanguageinthesocialsettingofIndiasimplybecauseinsuchacontext"ethnic separatenessofhomelifeisvalued"(GumperzandWilson,1971),andlanguageisemployedasa functionaltoolforethnicityandculturemaintenance.Butsuchaninstanceofculturalpluralismis notrestrictedtothemigrantsectionofIndiansociety.Wefindthatspeakersofdifferentregional dialectshavelongshowedtheirallegiancetotheirsupralocallanguage.Forexample,linguistically distinctanddiversedialectspeakersofHindilikethoseofBhojpuri,Brajbhasa,Awadhi,and MaithiliacceptedtheirregionaldialectsastheirprimaryMTandHindiastheirassociateMT. Viewedfromtheaxisofformallinguistics,thesedialectsaredistinctlanguagesbecausestructurally theyaredifferentfromeachotherandfromstandardHindi.Becausespeakersoftheseregionally markedlinguisticcodesregardthemselvesaspartofthegreatHinditradition,thesecodesare viewedfunctionallyandsociolinguisticallyasregionaldialectsofHindi.Forthisreasoneventhose dialectspeakerswhohavemarginalcompetenceinHindiidentifyitastheirMT(Srivastavaetal., 1977).Furthermore,ifwelookatthecommunicativefunctionofHindiinitshometerritory,wefind thatitservesasasupradialectalnormofverbalbehaviorforasingleintraurbanspeechcommunity connectedbyasuperregionalnetworkofcommunication(newspapers,books,radio,etc.),which extendsfromoneurbancentertoanotherwithoutdirectlytouchingtheinterveningruralareas (GumperzandNaim,1960). LikeHindi,allmajorregionallanguagesfunctionasasupradialectalnormofverbalbehaviorand formasinglespeechcommunityregardlessofitsdialectaldifferences.Itisnotthe assimilation/incorporationtypeofsituationwheresubordinatesgiveuptheirlanguages(dialects)in theprocessofsocialization.Instead,itisakindofculturalpluralismwhereinsubordinates(dialect speakers)arefirstgiventheirrelativeautonomyandthenbroughtintoacoordinatedcompliance withtheobjectivesofthesuperordinate(languagespeakers)group.Insuchasituation,anindividual belongingtoagivenspeechcommunitypossessesatleastadoubleidentity:apersonalandlocal identity(markedlinguisticallybyone'sdialect)andsuperimposedregionalidentitywhereintheego becomesidentifiedwiththatofallotherswithinthespeechcommunity(markedlinguisticallyby one'sregionallanguage).ThistypeofculturalpluralismuniquelyaccountsforIndia'ssocietal bilingualism. BilingualismisanaturalstateofverbalbehaviorinIndia.Thus,aGujaratispicemerchantsettledat Bombay,aspointedoutbyP.B.Pandit(1972),cansimultaneouslycontrolfiveorsixlanguages. SuchamerchantwillspeakGujaratiinhisfamilydomain,Marathiinavegetablemarket,Hindi withthemilkman,KacchiandKonkaniintradingcircles,andevenEnglishonformaloccasions. Suchapersonmaybepoorlyratedintheareaofimplicitknowledgeoflinguisticrulesofthese languages,butintermsofverballinguisticability,hecaneasily 251

belabeledamultilingual,fairlyproficientincontrollingdifferentlifesituationswitheaseandskill. AninherentsocialneedturnedIndianstograssrootsbilingualismwithouttakingrecoursetoany formaleducationaltraining.Forthisreason,inspiteofmassilliteracy,asocietaltypeof bilingualismhasbecomethelifeandbloodofIndia'sverbalbehavior. Thepluralcharacterofthenationandthefunctionalconfigurationoflanguagesinitsmultilingual settinghavealsomadeIndia'sbilingualismconcentricinorientation.Thespreadofdifferent languagesascontactlanguageswithvaryingintensitieshasassigneddifferentfunctionalloadsto themintheIndianlinguisticscene.Inthiscontext,wefindfourdistributionalpatternsofmajor languages(Khubchandani,1978:557):(1)contactlanguagesconfinedtotheirhomestates (Assames,Kashmiri,Tamil,Oriya,Kannada,Marathi);(2)contactlanguagesspillingoverinto neighboringstateswithinthelinguisticregion(Gujarati,Punjabi,Telugu,Malayalam,Bengali);(3) contactlanguagesspreadingbeyondtheirhomeregion(Hindi,Urdu);and(4)contactlanguagesnot belongingtoanyregion(English,Sanskrit).Patternsofintraregionalandinterregional communicationhavethusevolveddifferentkindsofpressureindexesforvariouslanguagesinthe differentregionsofIndia.Forexample,Englishhasemergedasoneofthetwomostimportant contactlanguagesinthecommunicationmatrixofIndia'surbanelitespeakers.Ontheotherhand, Hindiisalsousedasacontactlanguageinthenationwidenetworkofcommunicationmatrixbya greatmajorityofpeople,butitsdomainisrestrictedtothenonelitecontextofverbalinteraction. Thus,Englishelitistbilingualismcanbeseenfunctionallyatworkprimarilyintheeducatedsection ofthespeechcommunity,whichgivesitsuserspowerandprestige,whileHindifolkbilingualismis functionallyoperationalbasicallyamongpeoplewhoarenotnecessarilyeducated,nordothey achievepowerandstatusthroughthislanguage. ThisdistinctionbetweenEnglishelitistbilingualismandHindifolkbilingualismisvitalforan understandingofthedevelopmentofbilingualisminastratifiedpluralsociety.First,whileelitist bilingualismmakesapersoncompetenttoenterthelearnedsectionofasocietyandensuressucha personmembershipintheupperclass,folkbilingualismisgenerallytheresultofethnicgroupsin contactandcompetition.Second,asC.B.Paulston(1978:311)pointsout,elitistbilingualismisa matterofchoiceand,hence,doesnotposeanyseriousproblemformotivatingpeopletobecome bilingualthrougheducation.Onthecontrary,folkbilingualismresultswhenpeopleinvoluntarily learnanotherlanguagefortheirsurvival.Hindustaniislearnedinmultilingualcenterssuchas Bombay,Calcutta,andMadrasbypeoplewhoarenotwelleducatedfortheiroccupationalsecurity. AccordingtoM.L.Apte(1974),thisvariantofHindisharesmanycharacteristicfeaturesofthe languagesgenerallylabeledaspidginsandcreoles.Asanendproductoffolkbilingualism,this pidginizedvarietyofHindi,thoughwidelyusedalloverIndia,isneverpromotedinthefieldof educationbecauseitisstigmatizedintheelitevaluesystemascorruptHindi. TheofficialstatusofHindifurthercomplicatesthesituation.Theofficially 252

sponsoredHindiishighlySanskritizedanduniquelyformalizedbooklanguagemeanttoprovidethe baseforelitistbilingualism.ThisvarietyofHindiisbeinglegitimatizedastheofficiallanguageof theunionandisbeingplacedincompetitionwithEnglish.Thus,initshighSanskritizedformHindi isacaseofelitistbilingualism,andinitslowpidginizedvarietyitisasourceoffolkbilingualism. Thefirstformisbeingofficiallysponsoredasalanguageineducation,butoutsidetheeducational domainitremainstotallydysfunctional.Initspidginizedform,itisfunctionallyemployedallover Indiaasacontactlanguagebutistotallyexcludedfromthedomainofeducation.Thesameistrue forallothermajorlanguagesofIndia.Folkbilingualismisprimarilyresponsibleforspreadinga languagebeyonditshometerritory.Asrevealedbythe1971census(Appendix2),exceptfor Assamese,Kashmiri,andOriya,allthemajorregionallanguagesoccuraseithersecondorthird numericallymostimportantlanguagesinoneormorestates.NonmajorlanguageslikeDogriand KonkaniandtriballanguageslikeSantaliandBhilialsooccurasoneofthethreenumericallymost importantlanguagesinmorethanonestate/unionterritory.Thenatureandextentofconcentric bilingualismforceustohypothesizethatthepercentageofbilingualismamongthespeakersislower forthatlanguagewhichhasahigherfunctionalpotentialforcrossregionalspeechinteraction,that is,linguafranca(Srivastava,1977:78).Thishypothesisisattestedbythemeanpercentageof bilingualismgivenbyApte(1970:72)forthefourcategories: 1. Hindi(officiallanguageoftheunion):5.105 2. Majorstatelanguages:9.569 3. Majornonstatelanguages:18.842 4. Minorlanguages:42.144 ThemostrelevantcharacteristicofIndianbilingualismhasbeentheallocationofsocietalrolesto differentverbalcodesthatconstitutetheverbalrepertoireofagivenspeechcommunity.The noncompetingnatureoftheseroleshassustainedthenonconflictingandstablepatternofsocietal bilingualism.Itispreciselyforthisreasonthat,despiteahighpercentageofilliteracyandthe absenceofanyformalteachingprogramoflanguages,Indianspeechcommunitieshavebeenableto support"folk"multilingualismatthegrassrootslevelofexistence(Pandit,1972;Khubchandani, 1983;Srivastava,1977).AnIndianspeechcommunityregulatestheuseofthevariouscodesofits verbalrepertoirethroughcodeswitchingandcodemixingand,overandabove,bysimplifyingthe structureofonecodeandassimilatingtheelementsoftheothercode.Onthehorizontalaxis, languagesinIndiaformacontinuouschainfromSindtoAssam,withmutualintelligibilitybetween adjacentareas(Gumperz,1964).Similarly,ontheverticalaxisofspeechinteractioneachmajor speechcommunityexhibitsacontinuouschainfromthemostilliteratevarietyoflocalvillage dialecttothehighlyspecializedEnglishlanguage.Regionalandnationallanguagesserveas 253

mediaofsupralocalcommunication,withreciprocalintelligibilitybetweenhierarchically adjacentareas(Srivastava,1980a).Thehorizontalandverticalaxesofspeechinteractiongive risetotheconceptoflanguagecontinuum.ScholarsworkingintheareaofEnglishspeaking Caribbeansocietieshaveshownthatacontinuumoflanguageexists:creoleattheoneendand StandardEnglishattheother,withanintersectingmiddlezoneoflinguisticmixing(LePage, 1968;DeCamp,1971;Bailey,1973;Bickerton,1973).AccordingtoSrivastava(1984b),this linearaspectoflanguagecontinuum,inthecontextoftheIndiansituation,attestsatleastthe followinglanguagetypes.(Thesetypesformacontinuumnationallanguageattheoneendand "ingroup"minoritylanguagesattheother,withanintersectingmiddlezoneofmajor,mediate, andminortypesofnationalitylanguages.) 1. National/OfficialLanguage:interlanguageforlanguagesof"greattradition";forexample, HindiinthepanIndiancontext. 2. MajorNationalityLanguages:interlanguageforlanguagesof"littletradition";forexample, Bengali,Marathi,Tamil,andTelugu. 3. MediateNationalityLanguages:languagesoflinguisticminoritiesinsearchoftheirown "greattradition";forexample,SantaliandKonkani. 4. "Outgroup"MinorityLanguages:languagesoflinguisticminoritieswith"littletradition," servingalsoaslanguagesofwidercommunication;forexample,HalbiandSadari. 5. "Ingroup"MinorityLanguages:languagesoflinguisticminoritieswith"littletradition" performingexclusivelythefunctionofintragroupcommunication;forexample,Mishingin Assam,MaltoinBihar,orJuanginOrissa. Despitetheconstitutionalsafeguardsforlinguisticminorities,certainingroupminority languagesaregraduallybeingexcludedfromtheeducationalsystem.M.G.ChaturvediandS. Singh(1981:32)pointoutthat,earlier,eightyonelanguageswereusedasmediaofinstructionin thedifferentstatesandunionterritories.Thisnumberdecreasedtosixtysevenin197071,andby thetimetheyconductedtheirThirdAllIndiaEducationalSurveyin1973,therewereonlyfifty eighteducationallanguages. Thatthisshiftissymptomaticofachangeinthesocietyitselfisborneoutbythenewpatternof languagemaintenanceandshiftdiscernibleinIndia.Languagemaintenanceisnotaproblemfor thetraditionalagrariansocietyofIndia.Itisprobablyforthisreasonthat,unlikethesituationin EuropeandAmericawherelanguageshiftisthenormandlanguagemaintenanceanexception, "inIndialanguagemaintenanceisthenormandshiftanexception"(Pandit,1972:9).A traditionalagrariansocietyreadilyacceptsanymigrantgroupanditslanguagewithoutany tensionorconflict,provideditisnotathreattothehostcommunityordoesnotcompetewithits languageinrespectofstatusandpower.However,thesituationisrapidlychanging.Indiais experiencingaphaseofindustrializationandurbanization.Inanindustrialurbansociety, differentspeechcommunities 254

areforcedtolivewitheachotherinastateofconstantcompetitionandconflict.Insuchasituation, achangeisproducedinthestatusrelationbetweendifferentcodesoftheverbalrepertoireofagiven speechcommunity.Wherevercodesemployedbymigrantandhostcommunitiescompetewitheach othertoperformthesamefunction,shiftisafairprobability. Pandit'sstatementthatinIndialanguagemaintenanceisthenormandshiftanexceptionis inaccurateinatleastthreedifferentcontexts.TheHindibeltwhichattestslanguagedialecttypeof restrictedculturalpluralismprovidesthefirstcontext.Whentheindigenoussubordinatedialect speakersleavetheirhomeregion,theirdescendantsgiveuptheirprimaryMT(dialect)infavorof Hindiinamatterofafewgenerations.Themigrant'sMTdisappearsbecauseitisnotconsideredto beanidentitymarker.ThetribalsubordinatesprovideasecondcontextofMTshift.Severaltribes inthenortheasternzonehavegivenuptheirhighlylocalizedMTinfavorofregionallanguageorof anemerginglinguafranca.The1961censusshowsthat44.45percentofKurux(Oraon)speakers haveshiftedtotheOriyalanguageinOrissaandthatthisMTshifttoBengaliinBengalisaround55 percent.The1961censusalsorevealsthatinthisregionnolessthan63.47percentoftribal populationhasshiftedtoSadarianemerginglinguafrancaastheirMT.PunjabiHinduspeech communitiesofPunjabandDelhiprovidethethirdcontext.A.Mukherjee(1980)hasshownthat, whilemembersoftheBengalispeechcommunityshowaminimaldegreeofMTdisplacement, PunjabiHindusgetcompletelyassimilatedtotheenvironinghostsociety.Theyoungergeneration showsa100percentshiftfromPunjabitoHindi.Alltheseinstancesrevealthat,withrespecttothe questionofintegration(completeassimilationtothehostsociety),accommodation(part assimilationandpartretentionoftheiridentity),andretention(maintenanceoftheirexclusive identity),migrantsubordinatesinIndiabehavedifferentlyinurbanizedmetropolisesthanthosein traditionalagrariansettings. HISTORICALPERSPECTIVE Indiaprovidesanexemplaryinstanceofdiffusionoflinguistictraitswitharemarkabletimedepth. Forseveralmillennia,ithasbeenamultilingualandmulticulturalcountryinwhichspeakersof distinctlinguisticandethnicstockshavecoexistedandinteracted.Asaconsequenceofthis coexistenceandlanguagecontact,Indiaoffersarichexampleofhowlinguistictraitsbecome diffusedacrossgeneticboundaries.Thefusionanddiffusionofethnic,cultural,andlinguistictraits amongspeakersofAryan,Dravidian,AustroAsiatic,andTibetoBurmanfamilieshasled,onthe onehand,towhatS.K.Chatterji(1978)hascalledthebirthoftheIndianManand,ontheother,to whatMurryB.Emeneau(1956)hasdescribedthegenesisofIndiaasa"linguisticarea."According toChatterji(1978:63),AryanandDravidianspeakers,togetherwithotherelementsoftheIndian population,begantomiscegenateevenbeforetheyfoundthemselvesinIndia.TheAryanand Dravidianelementsgavebirthtothe"IndianMan" 255

duringthecloseoftheVedicperiod.EmeneaurecognizedthatIndianlanguagesbelongingto differentethnicstocksdevelopedinmutualinteractionandonthisbasiscameupwithhisnotion of"linguisticarea"which"includeslanguagesbelongingtomorethanonefamilybutshowing traitsincommonwhicharefoundnottobelongtotheothermembersof(atleast)oneofthe families"(Emeneau,1956:16).HeacceptedIndiaasa"linguisticarea"wherelinguisticareas wereshowntobeadirectconsequenceofacontactprocessinsteadofcommonorigin.This conceptisexplicatedbothbyKuiper(1967)andfurtherbyEmeneau(1962,1974). ThereisnowampleevidenceofapreVedicconvergenceofIndoAryanwithDravidianinthe areaofvocabulary,soundsystem,andgrammaticalstructures(Kuiper,1967;Southworth,1979; Hock,1975,1984).Theprocessofconvergencehasbeenglobalandallpervasive.Thereisclear evidenceofIndoAryanizationofDravidianlanguages(Sridhar,1975)anddravidianizationof IndoAryanlanguages(Andronov,1970).Theconvergenceprocessisalsonotableinthe HimalayanregionbetweenIndoAryanandSinoTibetan(Bendix,1974).Similarly,tribalareas ineasternandcentralIndiaattesttothecontactsituationbetweenDravidianandAustroAsiatic (Munda)languages.ThiscontactareacanwellbedefinedasDravidoMundoAryaninnature andscopebecausespeakersoflanguagesbelongingtoallthreelanguagefamilieshave converged.ThereisalsoamicrolinguisticareainthenorthwestIndianfrontierwithregardto convergenceoftraitsbelongingtoIndoAryan,Iranian,andDardicstocks. TheconvergenceoflanguagesinextendedbilingualcontactcanbeseeninIndiaondifferent levelsandindifferentsituations.Itisoperationallyfunctionalinternaltoalanguageinvolving regionaldialects(Hindi),castedialects(Kannada),styles(TamilandTelugu),andsoonwhich existindiglossicrelationship.Theconvergenceprocessinalongcontactsituationbetween languagesofthesameanddifferentlanguagefamilieshasbroughtontothelinguisticsceneof Indiaevencontact(pidgin)languages.Theyarenowbeingidentifiedaslanguagesintheirown right;forexample,Halbi(Chattisgarhi+Oriya+Marathi),Malwi(Gujarati+Rajasthani),and Saurashtri(Gujarati+Tamil).ThereisalsoaninstanceofIndoPortugueseCreoleinwhich nonindigenouslanguagesareinvolvedincreatingpidginandcreoleinthesubcontinent.Studies likeGumperzandWilson(1971)revealthatlanguagesinIndiahavesointegratedthemselves thatfortheselanguagesthereexists"asinglesemiological,asinglesyntacticandasingle phoneticcomponentandalternativesetofrulesfortherelationofsemanticcategoriesto morphemicshape"(GumperzandWilson,1971:164).Differentlanguagesareidentifiedmainly intermsoftheirdistinctvocabularies.AccordingtoM.S.Andronov(1964:13),languagesin contactsituationshaveundergonefarreachingconvergence,therebyweakeningtheirsocalled geneticrelationshipswithinthefamily.Thecumulativeresultofstructuralchangesofcontactand convergenceisthatinmanyrespectsIndoAryanlanguagesseemtobemoreakintoDravidian thantotheothergeneticallyrelatedIndoEuropeanlanguages. 256

Thisconvergenceleadstothenotionofthe"IndianMan"andmakesforsimilaritiesinlanguages thatwouldotherwisebelongtogeneticallyunrelatedlanguages.However,thisdoesnotprecludethe maintenanceofdistinctlocalandregionalidentitybythemembersofdifferentspeechgroups.It thereforesuggeststhatethnicityandculturemaintenanceisastablephenomenonforIndia.As shownbyGumperzandWilson(1971)andPandit(1972),despiteheavyconvergenceatalllevelsof languageorganization,oneaspect(i.e.,lexicon)iskeptseparateasamarkerofthelocal/regional identity. Linguisticconvergenceunderconditionsofstablebilingualismhasbeenacontinuedprocess throughoutIndia'shistorybecause,ontheonehand,membersofethnicminoritygroupsasserted thedesirabilityofpreservingtheirwayoflifethroughitslanguage,culture,religion,andsoon,and, ontheotherhand,membersofthedominantgroupshowedtolerationforthesedifferences.Even thoughtheseminoritygroupshaveprimarysocioculturalrelationsintheirowngroup,theytendto developsecondaryrelationswiththedominantgroup.Thistendencyofsocialparticipation regulatedbyinstitutionalrolesmakesthesocietyculturallypluralandsociallyintegrative.Itisa uniquesituationwhereinexclusivenessintheareaofprimarysocioculturalrelationspromotesa maximaldegreeofenclosure,whereastheactiveinteractionwithmembersofadominantgroup controllingboththepolityandtheeconomyinthefieldofsecondarysocializationprovidesthe minimaldegreeofenclosure. Thisprocessofintegration,whichencouragesthemaintenanceofethnicidentitiesofdifferent groupsononelevelofsocialorganizationandpromotionoftheirmergerintoasubordinategroup onanotherlevel,continueseventoday.Forexample,inspiteofitsverylowpercentage,South IndianspeakersinDelhiarenotforcedtogiveuptheircultureandlifestyleinordertobeidentified asDelhiwallahs.ThesepeoplecametoDelhiasexecutivesorascorrespondentsorasteachers,but theybroughtwiththemtheirtemples,theirschools,theiramateurtheatre,andtheirmusic.Through thesesocioculturaldevices,theyneverlentthemselvestototalculturalselfabnegation,buttheyalso neverremainedisolatedinotherareasofsocialparticipation.Since,inIndia,theseparatenessof ethnicrelationslikedialectsofagivenlanguagedoesnotusuallydetractasocialgroupfromthe widerloyaltiestoanationandsincelanguageisemployedasaneffectivetoolforcultural maintenanceaswellasforsocialparticipation,wefindhereaconditionconduciveforthecultural pluralismwithinamultilingualframework.Thisalsoexplainswhyherewefindapartialratherthan atotallanguageshift. Thechangeinthesocialstructureofthemodernsocietyattheregionalandnationallevelshas resultedinincongruentrelationsemergingbetweensubordinateethnicminoritygroupsandthe superordinatehostsociety.Inthepast,India'slanguagepolicywasmoreliberal,buttodayithas inadvertentlymovedtowardastrongpositionofcentralization.Asaresult,thedifferentgroupsof thesocietynowfacetensionandconflict.Aslanguageisaverytransparentculturalsymbol,the tensionisbeingmanifestedintheformoflanguageconflict 257

andlanguagemovements.Intheattemptatdetribalization,themajoritydominantgroupexpected minorityethnicgroupstogiveuptheirnativetraits.Ontheotherhand,thesegroupsarenow creatingandperpetuatingnewboundarymarkersfortheirsurvivaland,inmanycases,areforming theirown"greattradition."Therefore,theirpositionhasshifted.Whereasearliertheywereengaged inlearningthelanguageofthesuperordinateinordertopartakeoftheadministrativeandeconomic benefits(motivationfortheMTshift),nowtheyareparticipatinginactivitiesrelevanttothe maintenanceoftheirownethnicidentityandreshapingofdestiny(motivationfortheMT maintenance). LANGUAGEPROBLEMSINCONTEMPORARYINDIA Thestudyoforganizedeffortstosolvethepersistinglanguageproblemsofsocialsignificanceand ofnationalorderhasbeendesignatedbysocialscientistsasanareaoflanguageplanning.More specifically,itisanareathatdealswith"consciousgovernmentaleffortstomanipulateboththe structureandfunctionalallocationofcodeswithinapolity"(Fishman,1969:186).B.H.Jernudd andJ.DasGupta(1971:197)emphasizetheneedforabroaderidentificationofproblemsand believethatamajortaskoflanguageplanningistoidentifytheconcreteareasofsocietythat demandplannedactionregardinglanguageresources.Languageproblemsaretobeseenwithinthe totalityorpatternofrelationsbetweenlanguagesandtheirenvironmentwhichE.Haugendefinesas "LanguageEcology"(1979:243). LanguageplanninginsomeofthedevelopingmultilingualandmulticulturalcountriesofSouthand SoutheastAsiaisakindofentrepreneurialexperiencethatisradicallydifferentfromthatofsomeof thedevelopedmonolingualcountriesoftheWest.Withapopulationofover650million,1,652 MTs,and10majorwritingsystems,Indiaasasociolinguisticcomplexoffersauniquechallengefor languageplanners.However,itisnotonlythemultiplicityoflanguagesthatmakesthetaskof plannersintricateandcomplex.Indiahasbeenmultilingualfromthebeginningofrecordedhistory, andforthiscountrybilingualismhasbeenanaturalstateofverbalbehavior."Whatisnewand significantforpoliticalstudyisthemobilizationoflanguagegroupsforsocialandpolitical objectives"(DasGupta,1970:70).Howtheseprocessesofmobilizationhaveinvariablyresultedin thepoliticalexpressionsoflanguageloyaltiescanbeseenthroughthenumberoflanguage movementswhichIndiahasexperiencedsinceindependence(Annamalai,1979)andinthepolitical restructuringofsomeofthestatessince1956when,ontherecommendationsoftheStates ReorganizationCommission,theboundariesofcertainstatesinIndiawereredrawnonalinguistic basis(Srivastava,1984b).In1956,therewereonlysixteenstates,whereasin1971theIndianUnion consistedoftwentytwolinguisticallyorganizedstatesandnineunionterritories.In1960, Maharashtrawasdividedintotwostatesbecauseoftheconflictbetweentwoprominentspeech communities,GujaratiandMarathi,andin1966,Punjabwasdividedintotwostates,Punjaband 258

Haryana,becauseoftheviolenceandbitternessbetweentheHindusandtheSikhs,theHindus adheringtoHindiandtheSikhstoPunjabi. TheCongresspartyofIndiaformallyacceptedtheprincipleoflinguisticredistributionofprovinces asaclearpoliticalandadministrativeobjectiveattheimportantNagpursessionof1920(Kamath, 1966).Thecasefortheformationofstatesonalinguisticbasisrestedonthefollowingfactors:(1) enablingthegeneralpublictomaintainadministrationintheirownlanguage,(2)promotingboththe economicandsocialinterestsofaparticularlanguagegroup,(3)reducingthenumberoflinguistic minoritiesandtheirproblems,and(4)strengtheningthepoliticalunityofIndia.Twofactswere emphasizedone,differentlinguisticgroupsweresubnationsand,two,peoplespeakingacommon languagecouldbebroughttogetherbydeclaringthesestatesmonolingual. India'srecenthistoryhasshownthattheschemeforredistributingstatesonalinguisticbasishas increasedinterstaterivalriesandhasledtoviolence,bitterness,anddisturbancesamongmembersof differentspeechcommunities.Anobjectivestudyofthesituationshowsthat,astheproblemof linguisticminoritiesissuigeneris,thelinguisticreorganizationofstatesinitselfisnosolutionto thevitalproblemofthesesubordinatedspeechcommunities(Srivastava,1984a,1984b).Onehasto recognizethat,whileIndia'slanguageecologyisbasedongrassrootsbilingualisminwhicheach majorlanguageactsmerelyasalinklanguage,theactualformationoflinguisticstatesconvertslink languageintoadominantlanguage,thatis,languageofpoliticalpowerandprestige.Asadominant language,therecognizedstateofficiallanguagegetsimpregnatedwithpowerandbeginstoblock theupwardsocialmobilityofthemembersofotherspeechgroups.Thisbecamethemajorcauseof intergrouprivalriesandagroundforthedemandforfurtherlinguisticfragmentationofthecountry. OtherfeaturesofIndia'slanguageecologythathavebecomeaconcernforpolicymakersareas follows: (1)InatraditionalandstratifiedsocietylikethatofIndia,anetworkofregionalandsocialidentities exists(SrivastavaandGupta,1982).Consequently,inthemannerofsociopoliticallyorganized systemslocal(village),regional(state),national,andsoonlanguageidentitiesarealsolayered hierarchically.Itisobviousthenthatlanguageconflictsmaymanifestaclashofinterestsbetween anytwolevelsofidentities.Forexample,Hindiasthenational/officiallanguageofIndiacomesinto conflictwithEnglish(asanassociateofficiallanguageofIndiaandasalanguageforinternal communication),withTamilandBengali(asdevelopednationalitylanguages),withMaithiliand Bhojpuri(asregionaldialectsthreateningtoestablishtheirownlocalidentities),andwithSantal andKhasi(asethnicvernacularsoftribesthatareinsearchoftheirowngreattradition). (2)India'smajorlanguagesofferanenormouslycomplexlanguagesituationbecauseofallkindsof linguisticvariabilityregional(dialectal),social(sociolectal),andstylistic(diatypic).Complexities arealsocausedbythesuperimposedfunctionalvarieties,multigradedassimilationofloanwords, andvarious 259

kindsofinterferenceandswitchingofdifferentcodesamongmultilingualspeakersofthislanguage. Allthesefactorsgreatlycomplicatethetaskofstandardization(codification).Throughcodification, standardizationprescribesanauthenticvariantofalanguageinthefaceoflanguagevariability (Garvin,1964).C.A.Fergusoncharacterizesstandardizationas"theprocessofacceptanceofone varietyofalanguagethroughoutthespeechcommunityasasupradialectalnorm"(1968:37). Similarly,accordingtoGarvin,astandardlanguagehastofulfillthreedistinctfunctions: unification,prestige,andframeofreference(Garvin,1964:522).Twoormoresuperimposed varieties(microlects)existforoneandthesamelanguage,andthesevarietiestendtocompetewith eachotherfortheirpreservationandpromotiontothestatusofstandardizedvariant.Thus,inthe Hindibelt,thetwomajormicrolects,HighHindiandHighUrdu,canbetakenastwoliterarystyles superimposedoveraHindustanibasedvernacular. Almostallmajorlanguagesshowasharpcleavagebetweenstandardizedliterarymicrolectand nonstandardvernacularmicrolectforexample,Telugu(Sjoberg,1962),Marathi(Apte,1962; Bersten,1975),Tamil(ShanmugamPillai,1960),Bengali(Dimock,1960),andKannada(Bright, 1960;McCormack,1960).ConscientiouslinguistsworkinginthefieldofSouthAsianlanguages havesupportedtheproposalofC.C.FriesandK.L.Pike(1949)thatlanguagesinsuchacontext exhibitthecoexistenceofsimultaneoussystemsthat"operatepartlyinharmonyandpartlyin conflict"(Gumperz,1961;FergusonandGumperz,1960;Srivastava,1969).Thegapintermsof comprehensibilityandcommunicabilitybetweentwomicrolectscansometimesbealmostaswide asthegapbetweentwolanguages(Srivastavaetal.,1978).Howandtowhatextentlinguistic variabilitycanposeproblemsforlanguagestandardizationinIndiahasbeendiscussedby Krishnamurti(1979)andSouthworth(1985).Itisapparentfromcrosslinguisticcomparisonsof thisprocessthatfortheselanguagesmorethanonestandardnormhasemerged.Further,theprocess isnotuniform.StandardTamilisclosertothewrittenclassicalvarietyandisnotbasedonthe contemporaryspokenvarietyofanysectionofthepeople,whilewrittenstandardnormsinHindi, Bengali,Marathihavetheirbaseinthespokenstandardsofthemetropolitancentersviz.Delhi, CalcuttaandPoonarespectively. (3)WiththeruleoftheBritish,Englishbecamethevehicleofscientificandtechnological knowledge,asalsothelanguageofadministrationandprestigiousvocations.Theuseofregional languagesremainedconfinedtoareasofexpressiveculture.InpostindependentIndia,a constitutionalsafeguardwasprovidedforpromotingregionallanguagesinthedomainsof administrationandotherprestigiousvocations.Itwassincerelyfeltthattheregionallanguagesmust beequippedwithnewvocables,terminologiesandphrasalexpressionsintheareasofdiscoursein whichEnglishhadhithertoenjoyedexclusiveprivilege(SrivastavaandKalra1984:43). Modernizationisaproblemthatleadstotheprocessofelaborationwhich,accordingtoFerguson,is "lexicalexpansionanddevelopingnewstylesandformsofdiscourse"(1968:33).Crosslinguistic comparisonsofthehistoricalprocessesofcodeelaborationinBengali,Hindi,Kannada,Marathi, 260

Oriya,Tamil,Teluguetc.(KrishnamurtiandMukherjee1984)revealthatexceptforTamil,the modernizationprocessischaracterizedbytwotendencies:Traditionalization(revivalist),whichat thehighestsubculturemakesthestyleclassicalbySanskritizationofthelanguage,and Anglicization(westernization),whichmakesthestylemodernbyAnglicizingthelanguage,thatis, byconstanttransferoflinguisticunitsofallsizesfromEnglishtotheregionallanguage.The politicizationoftheTamillanguagehasbeenmarkedbyamovetowardculturalemancipationofthe language.AnattemptisbeingmadenotonlytomakeaninternaltranslationofproperSanskrit namesintoTamil,butalsotoTamilizeEnglishtechnicaltermsandpopularloanwords. (4)InIndia,codeswitchingandcodemixingaslinguisticphenomenahavevitalimplicationsfor languagedynamicsandlanguagechange.Incontactsituationswithlocalandregionaldialects,they enrichthelanguagewithdistinctiveandcolorfultraitsexpressiveoflocalenvironment,andwith noncognativelanguageslikeEnglishinanaturalandeffortlessway.Theypromoteamongthe peopletheabilityforsentenceforsentencetranslatabilityand,bydiffusinglinguistictraitsacross linguisticstructures,increasethepowerandmutualadaptability.However,anattitudeanalysisof peopleacrosslanguageareasshowsthatcodeswitchingandcodemixingareviewedasmarkingan undevelopedstageoftheirlanguagedevelopmentandasindicatingpoorcontrolofone'sown linguisticandliteraryheritage.Anelitistapproachtocodificationandelaborationofregional languageshascreatedthenewvariantofregionallanguage,whichinthepasthasbeenapreserveof theeducatedelites.AsDasGuptapointsout,thewholeprocessoflanguagestandardizationand modernization"seemstogocontrarytothelogicofmassliteracy,affectiveaccessofnewgroupsto theeducatedcommunicationarenaandtosocializationofmaximumhumanresourcesingeneral" (DasGupta,1970:590). (5)Thereseemstobeadirectcorrelationbetweenaregion'sliteracyrateandlanguageecology. Literacymaybedefinedasanextensionofthefunctionalpotentialoflanguagewithregardtothe channelofcommunicationwhichinvolvesreadingandwritingskills.Ithastwodistinctaspects however:orientational(mathemagenicfactors),thatis,theabilitytocontrolthegraphicmediumof alanguage;andoperational(performancefactors),thatis,theabilitytousealanguageinawritten medium.Thesecondaspectisdirectlyconcernedwiththevariantofalanguagewhichis institutionallyemployedintheecologicalsettingofwriting.Ithasbeenshownthatthehighestrates ofilliteracyinIndiaarefoundwhere"thewrittenstandardvarietyofalanguageisfarremovedin grammarandvocabularyfromthelocalvernacularandhomevariantofthelanguage"(Srivastava, 1984c:32).DeSilva(1976)hasshownapositivenexusbetweenpovertyandilliteracyontheone handandbetweenilliteracyanddiglossiaontheother. AsurveyrevealsthatthereareatleastthreesituationsinIndiainwhichliteraryskillsarebeing initiatedthroughasecondlanguage.Thefirstsituationconcernsthetribalorminoritylanguage speakerswhoemploythemajorlanguageoftheir 261

regionorEnglishforliteraryskills,eventhoughtheyuseacontactpidginasthelanguageof interethniccommunication(Shreedhar,1976:371).Thesecondsituationconcernsdialect speakerswhoareinitiatedintoliteracythroughprimerswritteninastandardlanguage,atthe costoflinguisticallydistinctcodesinwhichlearnershaveexclusiveproficiency(Srivastava, 1984c;Krishnamurti,1978).ThethirdsituationexistsintheEnglishmediumschoolswhere speakersofdifferentmajorIndianlanguages"firstachieveliteracyinEnglishalanguagein whichtheircapacityaswellasopportunityforuseisextremelylimitedwhencomparedtothe nativespeakersofEnglish"(Sah,1978:32).Thispracticeofinitiatingliteracyinasecond languagenotonlyviolatestheoperationalefficiencyconditionthatliteracyismosteffectively achievedinMT,butalsodowngradesthelearner'sMTandgeneratesdisharmonious relationshipsbetweenfunctionsofliteracy(i.e.,whatliteracydoesforlearners)andusesof literacy(i.e.,whatlearnersdowithliteracyskills). LANGUAGESINEDUCATIONANDBILINGUALEDUCATION ThreemaintrendscharacterizethepostcolonialphaseofAfricanandAsianhistory:(1) rediscoveryoftheimportanceofindigenouslanguages,(2)recognitionoftheimportanceof mothertonguesforprovidingequalaccesstoeducation,and(3)promotionofunityofpolity comprisingalargenumberofheterogeneousethnolinguisticgroupsbyselectionand developmentofanational/officiallanguage(Srivastava,1980a).MTteachingisconsideredof primaryimportancewithintheoveralldevelopmentpolicybecauseitisthelanguageinwhicha childfirstfindsexpressionofselfandenvironment;itgiveseveryoneequalaccesstoeducational opportunities;andithelpsbridgethegapbetweenthehomeandtheschoollanguage.Selection andpromotionofnationallanguageareconsideredessentialbecausetheaccesslanguage(1) servesasoneofthemainunifyingfactorsinthenationalintegration,(2)becomesthemeansand symbolofnationalidentityandpride,and(3)servesasacompetentmediumforinterethnic communication. India'seducationalpolicyseekstomaintainnationalunitythroughitsacceptanceoflinguistic diversity.Withtheacceptanceoftheprincipleofunitywithindiversity,educationalplanners havestartedlookingattheproblemofrelativefocusonlanguageasasubjectandmediumof instructioninthewidercontextofachild'sstagesofsocializationandaninstitution'slevelsof education.Scholars,forexample,havevisualizedthreeformsofsocialization:primary,the processwhereinchildrenlearntoadapttofamilyandcommunityrolesinprimarygroup contexts;secondary,theprocessthroughwhichchildrenlearntobemembersoftheirlarger community;andtertiary,theprocesswherebylearnersdevelopoperationalandprofessional skills(Singleton,1973).Similarly,theReportoftheEducationCommission(196466)proposes threelevelsofeducation:LevelI,whichincludespreschoolandprimaryeducation,LevelII, which 262

 includeslowerandhighersecondaryschool,andLevelHIwhichincludesgraduateeducation, professionaldegrees,andhigherresearch.TheThreeLanguageFormulawasfirstdevisedfor India'sschooleducationbytheCentralAdvisoryBoardofEducationin1956andwas subsequentlymodifiedbytheConferenceofChiefMinistersin1961.Itisbasedonthreefactors: (1)recognitionoftherightofethnicminoritiestogeteducationalinstructionthroughtheirMT; (2)promotionofthestateofficiallanguageasamajorregionallanguageforbringingthe differentethnicgroupsoftheregionintothesocioculturalmainstream;and(3)developmentofa panIndianofficiallanguageoftheunioninordertointegratethecountryasapolity.The formularecognizesthefollowinglanguages: 1. TheregionallanguageandthemothertonguewheretheMTisdifferentfromtheregional language. 2. Hindior,inHindispeakingareas,anotherIndianlanguage. 3. EnglishoranyothermodernEuropeanlanguage. Differentsurveysoftheplaceoflanguagesintheschoolcurriculum(ChaturvediandMohale, 1976)andlanguagesasmediaofinstructioninIndianschools(ChaturvediandSingh,1981) showthatthecentralgovernmenthasbeenunabletoensurethefaithfulimplementationofthe formula.Apparently,eachofthevariablesplanning,implementation,population,andsituation contributesinitsownwaytothefailureofitseffectiverealization.Forexample,asubstantial causeofwastageandfailurewithintheschoolshasbeentracedtotheimpartingofeducationin theearlystagesinlanguagesotherthanthemothertongue(GoelandSaini,1972;Pattanayak, 1981;RoyandKapoor,1975).However,severalMTsofIndianeitherhavewritingsystemsof theirown,noraretheyemployedintheecologicalsettinginwhichwritingiscontextually appropriate.BecausemanyMTsenjoylittleprestigeintheeyesoftheirusers,noattempthas beenmadetobringthemintotheorbitofeducation.Hence,itisprobablyforthisreasonthatout of1,652MTsor,say,outof200classifiedlanguages,only67languagesarepresentlybeing employedaseducationallanguages.Otherfactorsresponsibleforthefailureoftheformulaare: (1)ignoranceregardingthenatureandfunctionofgrassrootssocietalbilingualismcharacteristic ofthecountry,(2)neglectofboththestructureandfunctionalallocationoflinguisticcodes withintheframeworkofIndia'seducationalpolicy,(3)nonavailabilityofatransfermodelin educationforasmoothswitchoverfromminorethniclanguagestomainstreamregional languagesandfromthesenationalitylanguagestonationalandinternationallanguagesas educationallanguages,and(4)lackofseriousnessaboutdevelopinglanguagepedagogyasa scientificdisciplinerequiredformakingasounddistinctionbetweenthefunctionalityofL1,L2, andL3teaching. Highereducationisplaguedbymanyinternalcontradictions.Withregardtotheplaceof languagesinhighereducation,thefollowingviewpointiscurrent:astheuseofEnglishassuch dividesthepeopleintotwonationsthefewwho 263

dominateandthemanywhoaredominatedthechangeoverinthemediumofinstructionfrom EnglishtoIndianlanguageshasbeennecessary.Thereality,ontheotherhand,directsusto believethatinthefieldofhighereducationEnglishcontinuestobefunctionallyaverypotent language.ThereasonsadvancedforretainingEnglishinhighereducationareasfollows:(1) EnglishisahighlydevelopedlanguagebestsuitedforIndia'sindustrialandscientificprogress; (2)Englishislessdivisivebecauseofitsneutralcharacter;(3)Englishenablestheeducated Indiantomoveaboutinsideandoutsidethecountry;(4)Englishbrightensthestudents'prospects ofgettingprestigiousjobs;and(5)Englishisstillthelanguageofadministration(Srivastavaand Gupta,1982:1516).Foradetaileddiscussionofthetopic,seeKachru(1978;1983). Astatisticalexaminationofthenumberoflanguagesatthesuccessivestagesofeducationreveals thatthehigheronemovesineducationandthemoreoneaspirestoprofessionalexcellence,the smalleristhenumberoflanguagesemployedasthemediumofinstruction.Thisissomuchthe casethatfortechnicaltrainingandscientificresearchEnglishistheonlymediumthroughoutthe country.Ofatotalofsixtyseveneducationallanguages,fiftyareusedasmediaofinstructionat theschoolstage;thisnumberprogressivelydecreases,withonlytwelvelanguagesleftatthe graduateleveloftheteachingprograms. Whenstudiedfromtheaboveviewpoint,themultilingualeducationalsettingseemstoprovidean excellentconditionforbilingualeducationprograms.Viewedfromwithin,however,wefindthat mosteducationalinstitutionsattheschoolstagearemonolingualinorientation.Almostallrural schoolsemployavernacularmedium,whereasprestigiousschoolssituatedintheurbanareasare Englishmediumrightfromtheprimarystage.Someschoolshaveabilingualorientation,butthe goaloftheirbilingualprogramsiseithertransitionalbilingualism(i.e.,theuseoflearner'snative languageonlyduringthefirstfewyearsofprimaryeducation,andsubsequenttransfertotheuse ofeitherthemajorregionallanguageorHindiorEnglish)orpartialbilingualeducation(i.e.,the useofnativelanguageinthedomainofexpressiveculturelikereligion,culture,orliterature,as subordinatedtotheuseanddevelopmentofskillsinthesecondlanguageusuallymeanttobe employedinthedomainofprogressiveculture).Thecaseforabilingualprogramthatseeksto createfullbilingualismisalmostmissingfromtheIndianscene.Moreover,India'seducational orientationissuchthatitpromotesthecauseofonewaybilingualeducationastheprogramis generallyaddressedtominoritylanguageuserswhoareencouragedtolearnthelanguageofthe majority,andnotviceversa.BilingualeducationasaphenomenonexistsonIndia'seducational mapsimplybecauseitsecologicalsettingismultilingualandmulticultural,andnotbecauseof anyconsciousplanningoract. Asaresultofthesituationdiscussedabove,theproblemoflanguageineducationhastobe viewedinamuchwiderperspectiveandwithamoreintegratedstructurethanisfoundinIndia.It needsanintegratedperspectivethatacceptslanguagesimultaneouslyasameansofcognition,as atoolofcommunication,andasaninstrumentofnationaldevelopmentandintegration.Apart 264

frombeingthearmoryofthehumanmind(cognitivefunction)andvehicularfunction (communicativefunction),languageisalsoapotentiallyunifyingordisruptiveforce.An educationalpolicytruetothesocialconditioncanorganizelanguageeducationasakeyfactorinthe developmentofsocietyandnation,whichisthemainfunctionofeducation.Incontrast,an unrealisticlanguagepolicycanmakeeducationasubversiveforcethateitherdeniesamajorityof peopletheopportunityofparticipationintransformingthesociety,orgeneratesaconstantsourceof conflictandtension.ThesadpartofthestoryofIndiaisthatinitspolicyformulationforeducation, itisstrikinglysilentabouttheroleoflanguageineducationand,consequently,itsroleinthe developmentofhumanresources. BIBLIOGRAPHY AndronovM.S.1964."OntheTypologicalSimilarityofNewIndoAryanandDravidian."Indian Linguistics25:11926. .1970.DravidianLanguages.Trans.D.M.Segal.Moscow:Nauka. AnnamalaiE.,ed.1979.LanguageMovementsinIndia.Mysore:CentralInstituteofIndian Languages. ApteM.L.1962."LinguisticAcculturationandItsRelationtoUrbanizationandSocioeconomic Factors."IndianLinguistics23:525. .1974."PidginizationofaLinguaFranca:ALinguisticAnalysisofHindiUrduSpokenin Bombay."InternationalJournalofDravidianLinguistics3:2141. .1970."SomeSociolinguisticAspectsofInterlingualCommunicationinIndia." AnthropologicalLinguistics12:6383. BailyCJ.N.1973.VariationsandLinguisticsTheory.Arlington,Va.:CenterforApplied Linguistics. BendixE.H.1974."IndoAryanandTibetoBurmanContactasSeenThroughNepaliandNewari VerbTenses."InternationalJournalofDravidianLinguistics3:4259. BerstenM.1975."TheVariantModelofLanguage:SomeDatafromaStudyofMarathiSpeech." IndianLinguistics36:22733. BickertonD.1973."TheNatureofaCreoleContinuum."Language49:64069. BrightW.1960."AStudyofCasteandDialectinMysore."IndianLinguistics21:4450. ChatterjiS.K.1978.SelectedWritings:Vol.1.NewDelhi:Vikas. ChaturvediM.G.,andB.V.Mohale.1976.PositionofLanguagesinSchoolCurriculuminIndia. NewDelhi:NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining. ChaturvediM.G.,andS.Singh.1981.LanguagesandMediaofInstructioninIndianSchools. [ThirdallIndiaeducationalsurvey.]NewDelhi:NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchand Training. DasJ.Gupta1970.LanguageConflictandNationalDevelopment.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress. DeCampD.1971."TowardaGenerativeAnalysisofaPostcreoleSpeechContinuum."In PidginizationandCreolizationofLanguages,ed.D.H.Hymes.London:CambridgeUniversity Press,pp.34970. 265

DeSilvaM.W.S.1976.DiglossiaandLiteracy.Mysore:CentralInstituteofIndianLanguages. DimockE.C.1960."LiteraryandColloquialBengaliinModernBengaliProse."InLinguistic DiversityinSouthAsia:StudiesinRegional,SocialandFunctionalVariation,ed.C.A.Ferguson andJ.J.Gumperz.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.4363. EmeneauMurryB.1956."IndiaasaLinguisticArea."Language32:316. .1962."BilingualismandStructuralBorrowing."ProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilosophical Society106:43042. .1974."TheIndianLinguisticAreaRevisited."InContactandConvergenceinSouthAsian Languages,ed.F.C.SouthworthandM.L.Apte.[InternationalJournalofDravidianLinguistics: SpecialVolume]3:92134. FergusonC.A.1968."LanguageDevelopment."InLanguageProblemsofDevelopingNations,ed. J.A.Fishman,C.A.Ferguson,andJ.DasGupta.NewYork:JohnWiley,pp.2735. FergusonC.A.,andJ.J.Gumperz,eds.1960.LinguisticDiversityinSouthAsia:Studiesin Regional,SocialandFunctionVariation.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. FishmanJ.A.1969."NationalLanguageandLanguageofWiderCommunicationinDeveloping Nations."AnthropologicalLinguistics11:335. FriesC.C.,andK.L.Pike.1949."CoexistentPhonemicSystems."Language25:2950. GarvinP.L.1964."TheStandardLanguageProblem:ConceptsandMethods."InLanguagein CultureandSociety,ed.D.Hymes.NewYork:HarperandRow,pp.52123. GoelB.S.,andS.K.Saini.1972.MotherTongueandEqualityofOpportunityinEducation.New Delhi:NationalCouncilofEducationalResearchandTraining. GovernmentofIndia.196466.ReportoftheEducationCommission[Chairman:D.S.Kothari]. NewDelhi:ManagerofPublications. GumperzJ.J.1961."SpeechVariationandtheStudyofIndianCivilization."American Anthropologist63:97688. .1964."HindiPunjabiCodeSwitchinginDelhi."InProceedingsoftheIXInternational CongressofLinguistics,ed.H.Lunt.TheHague:Mouton,pp.11524. GumperzJ.J.,andC.M.Naim.1960."FormalandInformalStandardsintheHindiRegional LanguageArea."InLinguisticDiversityinSouthAsia:StudiesinRegional,SocialandFunctional Variation,ed.C.A.FergusonandJ.J.Gumperz.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.92 118. GumperzJ.J.,andR.Wilson.1971."ConvergenceandCreolization:ACasefromtheIndo Aryan/DravidianBorderinIndia."InPidginizationandCreolizationofLanguages,ed.D.Hymes. London:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.15167. HaugenE.1979."LanguageEcologyandtheCaseofFaroese."InLanguageandLiteraryStudiesin HonorofA.A.Hill,ed.M.A.Jazayery,E.C.Polom,andW.Winter.Vol.4.TheHague:Mouton. HockH.H.1975."SubstratumInfluenceon(RigVedic)Sanskrit?"StudiesintheLinguistic Sciences5:76125. .1984."(Pre)RigVedicConvergenceofIndoAryanwithDravidian?AnotherLookatthe Evidence."StudiesintheLinguisticSciences14:89107. 266

IndiaLiteracyAtlas.1978.Mysore:CentralInstituteofIndianLanguages. JernuddB.H.,andJ.DasGupta.1971."TowardsaTheoryofLanguagePlanning."InCan LanguageBePlanned?SociolinguisticTheoryandPracticeforDevelopingNations,ed.J.Rubin andB.Jemudd.Honolulu:UniversityPressofHawaii,pp.195215. KachruB.B.1978."EnglishinSouthAsia."InAdvancesintheStudyofSocietalMultiLingualism, ed.J.A.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,pp.477551. .1983.TheIndianizationofEnglish:TheEnglishLanguageinIndia.Delhi:OxfordUniversity Press. KamathV.B.1966.LinguisticVivisectionofIndia:Whynotstopitstill?Bombay:BharatiyaVidya Bhawan. KhubchandaniL.M.1978."DistributionofContactLanguagesinIndia:AStudyofthe1961 BilingualismReturns."AdvancesintheStudyofSocietalMultilingualism,ed.J.A.Fishman.The Hague:Mouton,pp.553585 .1983.PluralLanguages,PluralCultures.EastWestCenter:UniversityofHawaiiPress. KrishnamurtiBh.1978."ProblemsofLanguageStandardizationinIndia."LanguageandSociety, ed.W.McCormackandS.A.Wurm.TheHague:Mouton,pp.673692. KrishnamurtiBh.andA.Mukherjee,eds.1984.ModernizationofIndianLanguagesinNews Media.Hyderabad:OsmaniaUniversity. KuiperF.B.J.1967."TheGenesisofaLinguisticArea."IndoIranianJournal10,81102. LePageR.B."ProblemsofDescriptioninMultilingualCommunities."Transactionsofthe PhilologicalSociety,pp.189212. McCormackW.1960."SocialDialectsinDharwarKannada."LinguisticDiversityinSouthAsia: StudiesinRegional,SocialandFunctionalVariation,ed.C.A.FergusonandJ.J.Gumperz. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.7981. MitraA.1964.CensusofIndia1961.Vol.1.Delhi:GovernmentofIndia. MukherjeeA.1980.LanguagemaintenanceandlanguageshiftamongPunjabisandBengalisin Delhi:Asociolinguisticperspective.(Ph.D.dissertation,DelhiUniversity). PanditP.B.1972.IndiaasaSociolinguisticArea.Poona:UniversityofPoona. PattanayakD.P.1981.MultilingualismandMotherTongueEducation.Delhi:OxfordUniversity Press. PaulstonC.B.1978."EducationinaBi/MultilingualSetting."InternationalReviewofEducation3: 30928. RoyP.,andJ.M.Kapoor.1975.TheRetentionofLiteracy.Delhi:MacmillanCo. SahP.P.1978."Literacy,LanguageUseandModesofThought."LanguageForum4:3144. ShanmugamM.Pillai1960."TamilLiteraryandColloquial."InLinguisticDiversityinSouthAsia: StudiesinRegional,SocialandFunctionalVariation,ed.C.A.FergusonandJ.J.Gumperz. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.7981. ShapiroM.C.,andH.F.Schiffman.1981.LanguageandSocietyinSouthAsia.Delhi:Motilal Banarsidas. ShreedharM.V.1976."StandardizationofNagapidgin."AnthropologicalLinguistics18:37179. SingletonJ.1973."CrossculturalApproachestoResearchonMinorityGroupEducation."

267

cation."AnthropologyandLanguageScienceinEducationalDevelopment.[EducationalStudies andDocuments,No.11.]Paris:UNESCO,pp.1721. SjobergA.F.1962."CoexistentPhonemicSystemsinTelugu:ASocioculturalPerspective."Word 18:26979. SouthworthF.C.1979."LexicalEvidenceforEarlyContactsBetweenIndoAryanandDravidian." InAryanandNonAryaninIndia,ed.M.DeshpandeandP.Hook.AnnArbor,Mich.:Centerfor SouthandSoutheastAsianStudies,pp.191233. .1985."TheSocialContextofLanguageStandardizationinIndia."InLanguageofEquality,ed. N.WolfsonandJ.Manes.Berlin:Mouton,pp.22539. SouthworthF.C.,andM.L.Apte,eds.1974.ContactandConvergenceinSouthAsianLanguages. [SpecialvolumeofInternationalJournalofDravidianLinguistics]3,pp.120. SridharS.N.1975."LinguisticConvergence:IndoAryanizationofDravidianLanguages."Studies intheLinguisticSciences8:197215. SrivastavaR.N.1969.ReviewofA.R.Kelkar,StudiesinHindiandUrdu[Poona:DeccanCollege] Language45:91327. .1977."IndianBilingualism:MythandReality."InIndianBilingualism,ed.P.GopalSharma andS.Kumar.Agra:CentralInstituteofHindi,pp.5787. .1980a.LanguageTeachinginaBiorPlurilingualandMulticulturalEnvironment(Academic Report).Paris:UNESCO. .1980b."SocietalBilingualismandProblemsinOrganizingLanguageTeachinginIndia." IndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics6:1337. .1984a."LiteracyEducationforMinorities:ACaseStudyfromIndia."InLinguisticMinorities andLiteracy,ed.F.Coulmas.Berlin:Mouton,pp.3946. .1984b."LinguisticMinoritiesandNationalLanguages."InLinguisticMinoritiesandLiteracy, ed.F.Coulmas.Berlin:Mouton,pp.98114. .1984c."ConsequencesofInitiatingLiteracyintheSecondLanguage."InLinguisticMinorities andLiteracy,ed.F.Coulmas.Berlin:Mouton,pp.2937. .1984d."LiteracyinSouthAsia."AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics(198283)4:93110. SrivastavaR.N.,etal.1978."EvaluatingCommunicabilityinVillageSettings."Delhi:Delhi University[2parts]. SrivastavaR.N.,andR.S.Gupta.1982."MediaofInstructioninHigherEducationinIndia." IndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics8:122. SrivastavaR.N.,andA.Kalra.1984."ModernizationofHindiinNewsMedia."InModernization ofIndianLanguagesinNewsMedia,ed.Bh.KrishnamurtiandA.Mukherjee.Hyderabad:Osmania University,pp.4153. 268

Appendix12.1 MajorLanguageProfile(Source:Census1961;basedonApte,1970,andKhubchandani,1972) Native (MT) Speakers (inmillions) 2 129.2 Native (MT) ratio/1000 tototal population 3 294 Contact ratio/1000 among nonnative population 5 50

Major languages 1 Hindi

Contact (Speaker) (inthousands) 4 9.363

Nat Con ratio/ (3+

6 32

Talugu

37.7

86

3.279

94

Bengali

33.9

77

1.907

82

Marathi

33.3

76

2,724

83

Tamil

30.6

70

3,759

79

Urdu

23.4

53

2,006

58

Gujarati

20.3

46

558

47

269

Major languages 1 Kannada

Native (MT) Speakers (inmillions) 2 70.4

Native (MT) ratio/1000 tototal population 3 40

Contact (Speaker) (inthousands) 4 3,551

Contact ratio/1000 among nonnative population 5 9

Nativ Conta ratio/1 (3+5

6 49

Malyalam

17.0

39

218

0.5

39

Oriya

15.7

35

1,075

38

Punjabi

11.0

25

465

26

Assamese

6.8

16

1,649

20

Kashmiri

2.0

25

0.1

Sanskrit English

25 (thousand) 224 (thousand)

149 10,915

0.5 27

Appendix12.2 LanguageProfileofIndianState(Source:Census1971;basedonIndiaLiteracyAtlas 1978) S.No. 1 State/Union Territory 2 INDIA STATES Capital 3 DELHI Population 4 548,159,652 Threenumerically most importantlanguages 5

1.

AndhraPradesh Hyderabad

43,502,708

2.

Assam

Dispur

14,625,152

3.

Bihar

Patna

56,353,369

4.

Gujarat

Gandhinager

26,697,475

5.

Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu& Kashmir

Chandigarh

10,036,808

6.

Simla

3,460,434

7.

Srinager

4,616,632 271

1.Telugu85.37 2.Urdu7.59 3.Hindi2.28 1.Assamese59.54 2.Bengali19.44 3.Hindi5.34 1.Hindi79.77 2.Urdu8.66 3.Bengali3.46 1.Gujarati89.39 2.Bhili/Bhilodi2.83 3.Sindhi2.28 1.Hindi89.42 2.Panjabi8.34 3.Urdu1.95 1.Hindi86.87 2.Panjabi4.75 3.Dogri3.57 1.Kashmiri53.14 2.Dogri24.68 3.Hindi15.06

5 272 1.Malayalam 96.02 2.Tamil 8. Kerala Trivendrum 21,347,375 2.37 3.Konkani 0.38 1.Hindi 83.03 2.Bhili/ Madhya 9. Bhopal 41,654,119 3.12 Pradesh Bhilodi 3.Gondi 2.87 1.Marathi 76.61 10.Maharashtra Bombay 50,412,235 2.Urdu7.26 3.Hindi 5.02 1.Manipuri/ 63.24 2.Meithei 11. Manipur Imphal 1,072,753 2.Tangkhul 5.37 3.Kabui 4.06 1.Khasio 45.18 2.Garo 12.Meghalaya Shillong 1,011,699 32.48 3.Bengali 9.29 1.Kannada 65.97 Mysore 13. Bangalore 29,299,014 2.Urdu9.0 (Karnataka) 3.Telugu 8.18 1.Ao14.26 2.Konyak 14.Nagaland Kohima 516,449 14.01 3.Angami 13.22 15.Orissa Bhubanewar 21,944,615 1.Oriya 84.15 2.Telugu 2.28 1 2 3 4

1 2

16.Panjabi

3.Santali 1.72 1.Panjabi 79.49 Chandigarh 13,551,060 2.Hindi 20.01 3.Urdu0.21

1 2

17. Rajasthan

Jaipur

18.Sikkim

Gangtok

19.TamilNadu

Madras

20.Tripura

Agartala

21. UttarPradesh

Lucknow

22.WestBengal

Calcutta

5 1.Hindi 91.13 2.Bhili/ 25,765,806 3.25 Bhilodi 3.Urdu 0.21 1. Gorkhali/ 63.97 Nepali 2.Lepcha 209,843 10.63 3. Sikkim 5.19 Bhotia 1.Tamil 84.51 2. Telugu 41,199,168 8.75 3. Kannada 2.56 1. Bengali 68.79 1,556,342 2.Tripuri 22.72 3.Hindi 1.48 1.Hindi 88.54 2.Urdu 88,341,144 10.5 3.Panjabi 0.57 1. Bengali 85.52 44,312,011 2.Hindi 6.13 3.Santali 3.18

273

1 2

1.Bengali Andaman 24.12 UNION & 2.Hindi 1. PortBlair 115,133 TERRITORIES Nicobar 16.07 Islands 3.Nicobaress 15.06 1.Nissi/ 24.4 Dafla 2.Adi Arunachal 2. Itanagar 467,511 21.06 Pradesh 3. Gorkhali 6.61 Nepali

 1 2 5 1.Hindi 55.96 3.Chandigarh Chandigarh 257,251 2.Panjabi 40.67 3.Urdu0.66 1.Bhili/ 83.01 Dadra& Bhilodi 4. Nagar Silvassa 74.170 2.Gujarati Haveli 12.07 3.Marathi 2.29 1.Hindi 75.97 5.Delhi Delhi 4,065,698 2.Panjabi 13.04 3.Urdu5.68 1.Konkani 64.87 274 Goa,Daman 2.Marathi 6. & Panaji 857,771 19.71 Diu 3.Gujarati 7.07 Laccadive, 1. Minicoy& Malayalam Amindivi 83.9 7 Kavaratti 31,810 Islands 2.Tamil (Lakshadeep 0.36 ) 3.Hindi0.19
*

8.

Mizoram

Aizawal

332,390 1.Tamil 89.0 2. Malayalam 5.43 3.Telugu 3.69

9.Pondicherry Pondicherry 471,707

*FiguresforAssamincludethoseofMizoramalso.

13 LANGUAGEPLANNINGANDLANGUAGEACQUISITION:THE"GREATLEAP"IN THEHEBREWREVIVAL MosheNahir TherevivalofHebrewasavernacularandastandardlanguage,anunprecedentedsociolinguistic phenomenon,completedasitwasinlessthanageneration(approximately18901916)and describedattimesas"miraculous,"hasdrawntheattentionofwritersandscholarsfordecades. Languageplanningpractitionersandtheoreticiansandlinguistsinthefieldofsecondlanguage acquisitionhaveshowninterestinitsinceitisexpectedthatunderstandingtheprocessesinvolved maybebeneficialinexplainingthefailureofpastsimilarexperimentsandtheprospectof success,notonlyinlanguageplanningandattemptsatlanguagerevival,languagespread,and languagereform(Nahir,1984),butalsoinappliedlinguistics,particularlysecondlanguage acquisitionandbilingualeducation. PerhapsbecauseoftheHebrewrevivalinPalestineattheturnofthecentury,muchofthe relevantliteraturehasbeenpopular,emotionallyoriented,orevenromanticized(e.g.,St.John, 1952;TurSinai,1960).Literaturesassociatedwithsimilarstruggles,politicalorother,often featureatendencytoromanticizetherespectivemovementanditsachievementsaswellasmyths andlegendsfocusingontheheroicleader(s).TheHebrewrevivalmovementisnoexception.Its initiationandsuccesshavefordecadesbeenalmostexclusivelyattributedtooridentifiedwith EliezerBenYehudaandhisHebrewLanguageCommittee(laterAcademy).Whilehe undoubtedlyhadanimportantroleinthemovementasavisionaryandapropheticvoiceanda codifierofmodernHebrew,ithasbeenrecentlyrecognizedthatnotonlycouldsuchan accomplishmentnotbeperformedbyasingleindividualbuttherevivalwasacollectiveeffort carriedoutmostlybyagroupwithwhichhehadlittlecontact,viz.,theschoolteachersinthe ruralJewishcommunities("settlements")ofPalestine.Severalsignificantrelevantfactshave beenbroughtout:(1)In1914,whentherevivalwasvirtuallycompletedinthecountrygenerally (i.e.,inboththeurbanandruralregions),only4percent 275

ofthepopulationspokeHebrewinJerusalem,whereBenYehudaandhiscommitteewere locatedandwhichwastheircenterofactivity(onthe1914census,seeBachi,1956;theratiowas similar,incidentally,inmostotherurbanareas).(2)Thecommitteewasaltogetherinactive duringtherevival'smostcriticalperiod,between1891and1904.Therefore,itcouldhavelittleor noroleintheprocess.

1Specifically,itfocuseson ThisstudyseekstoexplaintheGreatLeapintherevivalofHebrew. how,withinonegeneration,theshifttookplacefromtheuseofYiddish,whichwasalmost universallyspokeninruralPalestine,andofnumerousotherlanguagesspokeninitsurban regions,intoHebrew.

Severalattemptshavebeenmadetodiscoverwhatmadetherevivalpossible.Amongthese,"the willofthepeople"hasbeenfrequentlymentionedasthesoleormajorfactor.AccordingtoKarl W.Deutsch(1942),forexample,theHebrewrevival(whichheerroneouslyequateswith languageplanninginNorwayandIreland;seeNahir,1978a:99)resultedfrom"anactofthe politicalwill."Furthermore,heassertsthatnow"itispossibletorevive...anyancientlanguage sufficientlyknowntohistory,ifitshouldsosuitanygroup'sdesireforseparateidentity" (Deutsch,1942:604).Thehistoricalevidence,however,doesnotsupportthisoptimism:political willwasabundantinmostpastattemptsatlinguisticrevival,yetallbutHebrewhavevirtually failed(Haugen,1966),includingthatofIrish,oneofDeutsch'sownexamples. CONDITIONSANDFACTORSINLINGUISTICREVIVAL Language(orspeech)revivalhasbeendefinedas"theattempttoturnalanguagewithfeworno survivingnativespeakersbackintoanormalmeansofcommunicationinacommunity"(Nahir, 2Adistinctionhasbeenmadebetween"conditions"forand"factors"inthesuccessof 1984:30). speechrevival(Nahir,1977b,1978a).Twoconditionshavebeenidentified:(1)Need,thatis,the existenceofasociolinguisticsituation,usuallysometypeofmultilingualism,inwhicha communityhasnocommonspeechand,therefore,lacksameansofcommunication.This situationusuallypresupposesachainofhistoricaleventsthathavebroughttogetherpeopleof differentlinguisticbackgrounds.(2)Code,thatis,theavailabilityofarevivablelanguagea writtenlanguageforspeechrevival,oranold,"dead,"historical,orevenartificiallanguagefor otherformsoflanguagerevivaltoresorttoandrevive. Althoughtheseconditionsareprerequisitesforlinguisticrevival,severalfactorsmay,tovarying degreesandinvariouscombinations,contributeorevenbecrucialtoarevival'ssuccess.The existenceofoneormorefactors,particularlyifpowerful,mayattimesevensubstitutefor"need" asaconditionwhenitismissingorifonlyapartialstateofmultilingualismexists.Itwillbeseen further,forexample,thatoneofthefactorsaffectingtheHebrewrevivalwastheattitudeof Palestine'sJewishcommunitytotheHebrewlanguagewhichderivedfromtheirattitudetothe nationalrevivalmovement.Thisfactorwassopowerfulthat 276

itcompensatedforapartialabsenceof"need":Yiddish,theJewishlanguageimportedfrom EasternEurope,wasalmostgenerallyspokenintherural"settlements,"andyet,asabove,itwas therethattherevivaloccurredfirst.Finally,thereisamajordistinctionbetween"conditions"and "factors":theconditionsmustbemetpriortoalinguisticrevival,whiletherespectivefactorscan contributetoitssuccess,astheyhaveinthecaseofHebrew.Whenconditionshavebeenmet, differentrevivalattemptsmaybeaffectedbyeitherthesameordifferentfactors,invarious degreesandcombinations. SOCIOCULTURALFACTORSINTHEHEBREWREVIVAL TheuniquenessoftheHebrewrevivalandtheeffectivenessofthestatusplanningthatbroughtit aboutwereoverwhelminglyduetothebackgroundthatexistedinPalestineduringandevenprior totherelevantperiod.Arecentstudy(Nahir,1983)haslistedandinvestigatedthethreemajor sociolinguisticandsocioculturalfactorsatwork,viz.,thecommunicativefactor,thenational politicalfactor,andthereligioeducationalfactor. TheCommunicativeFactor Asnotedbrieflyabove,linguisticneedsarenowviewedascrucialforsuccessinlanguage planningingeneralandlanguagespreadandacquisitioninparticular(e.g.,Haugen,1966;Rubin, 1971;Nahir,1984;andPaulstonthisvolume).Similarly,observationofthehistoricalexamples indicatesthatacriticalconditionforthesuccessfulrevivalorrestorationofavernacularisthe community'sneedforameansofcommunication.Suchaneedpresupposes,however,ahistorical chainofevents,albeitunfortunate,thathasbroughttogetherpeoplewhosharetheirpastand havesimilarcultural,economic,orotherobjectives,butdifferentlinguisticbackgrounds. Palestine'sJewsinthelatenineteenthcenturyweretheonlysuchcaseonrecord.Furthermore, thiscommunitywasinpossessionofanold,historicallanguage,Hebrew,stillinuseinwritten form,whichitcouldnowattempttoreviveanduseinspokenformaswell.Inallotherknown revivalattemptsacommunicativeneeddidnotexist,astherespectivecommunitieshada common"new"language,suchasEnglishinIreland(Macnamara,1971).Thelanguagestobe revivedwereusuallyintendedtobeusedonlyassecondlanguages,withbilingualismtheideal. Thus,speechrevivalcanonlysucceediftheprospectivelanguageistofillacommunicative SuchacommunicativevacuumprevailedatleastintheurbansectionsofPalestine'sJewish community.Auniquehistoricalprogression,begunwhentheRomansexiledthelargelyHebrew speakingJewsfromPalestineinthefirstandsecondcenturiesC.E.,endedtowardthecloseofthe nineteenthcenturywiththeadventoftheJewishnationalmovementandresettlementin Palestine.Thelatterweremotivatedbyacombinationofdevelopmentswidespreadpersecutions andprogramsdirectedagainstmanyEasternEuropeanJewishcommu 277

nities,theriseofnationalisminEurope,andcallsbyagrowingnumberofcontemporaryliterary andotherEuropeanJewishleadersforareturntotheancienthomelandandculminatedin1893 intheestablishmentofthepoliticalZionistmovementandthebeginningofsignificantJewish immigrationtoPalestine.Thisresultedinturninanacutestateofsocietalmultilingualism. OriginatingmostlyfromseveralEasternEuropeancountries,immigrantscouldnotcommunicate withotherimmigrantswhospokedifferentlanguagesorwiththesmalllocalJewishpopulation itselfconsisting,linguisticallyandtosomeextentculturally,ofscoresofsubgroups.When EliezerBenYehuda,aleaderoftherevival,arrivedinPalestinein1882,hefoundthatitsthirty thousandJews"werenotacommunityunitedbytheirlanguage.ThiswastrulyaBabel Generation,eachgroup[speaking]inthelanguageofthecountryithadcomefrom"(Ben 3WhentheHebrewLanguageCommittee,thefirstHebrewlanguage Yehuda,1917/18:95). planningagency,wasformedin1890,oneofitsmajorobjectiveswas"toclearfromtheJews livingintheLandofIsraelthejargons,Ashkenazic,Cephardic,etc.,that...makethembehave asiftheybelongedtodifferentnations....Andthesejabbers...bringabouthatred,jealousy andresentmentamongthevarious[Jewish]communities"(CollectionofDocuments,1970:20). Accordingtoanothercontemporarysource,"therewasnocommonlanguageinJerusalem.... TheSephardics...spokeJudeoSpanish....TheMusta'arabin(localJews)spokePalestinian Arabic,theMaghrebines(NorthAfricanJews)spokeArabicintheNorthAfricandialect,the CaucasiansspokeGeorgian,theCrimeansspokeTatarandtheAshkenazics...spokedifferent dialectsofYiddish"(Peres,1964:19). Eveninthemorelinguisticallyhomogeneousruralvillagesusuallyreferredtoas"the settlements"avisitingeducatorfoundthat"thejargonwasstillpredominant,andwhereverIwent Iheardchildrenspeakmostly[foreign]languagesathomeandinthestreets"(Zuta,1929:114).4 Still,thestateofmultilingualismthatprevailedinthesettlementswasnotassevereasinthe urbancenters,sincetheyconsistedofEasternEuropeanimmigrants,mostofwhomspoke Yiddish(usuallyinadditiontoRussian,Ukrainian,Polish,etc.).Yet,atleastintheJewish communityatlarge,linguisticfragmentationposedaseriousproblem.Thecommunicativefactor isthusclearlyevidentthroughout,yetitsimpactisseentohavebeenbyandlargethemost powerfulintheurbancenter.Inthesettlements,ontheotherhand,itwaslargelythenational politicalfactorthatprevailedintheentireperiod. Finally,itoughttobenotedthatYiddish,spokenbymostsettlers,orevenArabic,French,or German,spokenbyother,smaller,groups,couldhavebeenselectedforadoptionandspread. Owingtotheotherexistingfactors,however,Hebrewwasthepreferredchoice. TheNationalPoliticalFactor Anincreasingnumberofcasestudiesinrecentdecadeshasresultedintherecognitionthat nationalpoliticalfeelingsandaspirationscanconstituteapow 278

erfulmotivatorinlinguisticbehaviorandlanguageplanning(e.g.,Heyd,1954;Haugen,1966; Fishman,1971;Bourhis,1984).ThecaseofHebrewisnoexception.InPalestine'sagricultural "settlements,"comprisingastheydidasubstantialpartofthecountry'sJewishpopulation,the nationalpoliticalfactorprobablyplayedthemostimportantroleasbackgroundtothetransitioninto HebrewfromthedominantYiddish.Itwasalsothemostcrucialfactorinthe"codeselection" process,inwhichYiddish,thevernacularspokenbymostsettlers,andHebrew,theancientlanguage oftheBible,usedinwrittenformfortwomillennia,weretheonlytwoseriouscontenders.Itis instructive,therefore,tocomparecurrentattitudestobothlanguagesbymembersandleadersofthe communityaswellasbysomeinfluentialintellectuals. ManyearlyimmigrantssettlersstronglyresentedtheneedtouseYiddish,sinceitconstituteda constantreminderoftheirpeople'sprolongedexileandpersecutioninthe"diaspora"andoftheir ownlifepreviouslyinpogromriddenEasternEurope,withitsabuse,suffering,andmisery.Atthe sametime,Yiddishwasconsideredevenbycontemporaryeducatorsasa"vulgar"language,"unfit foruseintheschoolsasavehicleformattersofscience"(Azaryahu,1929:62).Thisattitudemayat leastpartlyexplaintheresultsofasociolinguisticstudycarriedoutdecadeslaterinIsraelwhich foundYiddishtobeundesirableand"deridedasasymboloftheunpleasingaspectsofadiaspora existence"(Herman,1968:499). Ontheotherhand,thecaseforHebrewastheJews'literaryandnationallanguage,inspiteofthe widespreaduseofYiddishasavernacularbyEasternEurope'sJewry,hadmanyadvocates.Itwas ledbyAsherGinzberg(betterknownbyhispseudonymAhadHa'am),aprominentessayistanda highlyinfluentialexponentandtheoreticianofJewishnationalism.Forhim,Yiddishwasmerelya "JewishGermanJargon,spokenbyourpeopleinthenortherncountriesforseveralcenturies[but] nomoresignificantforthemthantheotherexilelanguages,usingit...onlywhencompelledto,for thesakeofthoseunletteredinHebrew"(AhadHa'am,1903:1979).Hebrew,ontheotherhand,was fortheJewishpeopleitsnationallanguage,inwhich"ithadcreatedagreat,respectable literature...andinwhichithadrealizedthefullscopeofitsnationalspirit[since]thethresholdof history....Itsplaceinthedepthsofourspirithasnotbeen,andneverwillbetakenoverbyany otherlanguage....Thislanguagealonehasbeenandwilleverbeournationallanguage"(Ahad Ha'am,1903:179f.).Inanothermajoressay,"AConflictofLanguages,"AhadHa'ampassionately assertsthat"anationisonlyonethathasanationalcapital',a[language]accumulatedfromone generationtothenext,whichservesasabasisforitsnationallife"(AhadHa'am,1910:406). AhadHa'am'sviewsonthenationalandpoliticalroleofHebrewclarifyseveralaspectsofthe revival:(1)TheyexplainthemotivationtopreserveandmaintainwrittenHebrewfortwomillennia. TheriseinEuropeannationalismandthedeclineinJewishreligiouspracticeinrecentcenturiesled manytosubstitutethemaintenanceofHebrewforJewishnationalism,whichalsoexplains 279

theexclusiveuseofbiblicalHebrewbyprerevival"secular"writersandrejectionofvarieties developedaftertheJews'exilefromPalestinebytheRomans.(2)Theyexplainthemotivation behindthechoiceofHebrewasthelanguagetoberevivedbothasanationallanguageandasa vernacular.(3)Theydemonstratethenationalpoliticallinguisticattitudesatworkasafactorduring therevivalitself.AhadHa'am'scontributiontoitwasmostcrucial,however,inthat,highly esteemedandinfluentialashewas,hisviewshadaprofoundimpactonPalestine'sJewish intelligentsiaandeducators,whowereintheforefrontofitsimplementation.Hiswritingsthus acceleratedtheprocessconsiderably. WhileAhadHa'am,whostilllivedinEuropethroughmostofthisperiod,wastheforemost proponentofthepreservationofHebrewasanationallanguage,mostofthedrivetouseitas vernacularwascarriedoutinPalestine'sJewishcommunitybylocalleadersandintellectualswho viewedalinguisticrevivalasacrucialconditionfornationalrevivalintheancienthomeland.One ofthefirstoftheseleaderswasEliezerBenYehuda,avisionaryandthefirstcodifierofmodern Hebrew,whoinsistedontheindivisibilitybetweenrenewedJewishnationhoodandtheHebrew language:"IfIdidnotbelieveintheredemptionoftheJewishpeople,Iwouldhavenouseforthe Hebrewlanguage....Letusrevivethenation,anditslanguagewilllivetoo!...Suchamiracleis notimpossibleforittoaccomplish."(BenYehudawasstillconfidentthat"thisgreatmiracle... wasduetotheideaof[our]nationalrevivalinthelandofthefathers"(1918:233).Similarly,a contemporaryeducatorrecalledthatthecombinationofthenationalandthelinguisticrevivalswas "greatlyinstrumentalinbringingourdispersedpeoplecloserandmendingthepiecesofournation inourgatheringoftheexilesandtongues"(Azaryahu,1929:57). Finally,itshouldbenotedthatthenationalpoliticalfactorprevailedmoreintenselyinthe settlementsconsistingastheydidofrecentimmigrantswhoseverymovetoPalestinewasmotivated bynationalconsiderationsandforwhomnationalrevivalwithoutaconcurrentlinguisticrevivalwas inconceivable.Theintensityofnationalsociolinguisticattitudesinthecommunityatlargemaybe seenasacontinuumbetweenthegeneralurbanpopulationatoneextremeandtheruralschool system(seenextsection),wheretheintensitywasthegreatest,attheother,withthediverseurban schoolsystemsandtheruralpopulationsfloatingbetweenthepoles.Aswillbeseeninthenext section,adirectcorrelationexisted:wherethenationalpoliticalfactorwasmoreintense,the implementationprocesswasmosteffective. TheReligioEducationalFactor Comparedwithlanguagesthathavesurvivedinwrittenformandbeenusedbysmallelitegroups (e.g.,Latin)and"dead"languages(e.g.,Hittite,Akkadian),wemaydesignateprerevivalHebrewas a"livingwrittenlanguage."Fortwomillennia,sinceitsdemiseasavernacular,itwas uniterruptedlyusedinwritingreligious,liturgical,philosophical,andotherworksbyalonglineof 280

authors,sages,scribes,rabbis,philosophers,spiritualandcommunalleaders,liturgicalpoets,and, inrecentcenturies,"secular"poetsandnovelists.Thelargenumberofbothauthorsandreaders,an enduringrealitythroughoutJewishhistory,stemmedfromthefactthatvirtuallyallmaleshada considerableknowledgeofwrittenHebrew.This,inturn,wastheresultofafundamental cornerstoneofJewishlawwhichrequiredthatallmalesparticipateindailyservicesandregularly studytheBibleandtheTalmud,andatleastsomeoftheirnumerousinterpretations.Withthe exceptionoftheAramaicpartsoftheTalmud,thesewereallwritteninHebrew.Thus,thestudy, passiveknowledge,andregularuseofwrittenHebrewconstitutedamajorintegralcomponentofall males'educationandwayoflife(seeRabin,1976). Despiteasizabledeparturefromreligiousobservanceinrecentcenturies,theEuropeanJews' knowledgeofHebrewwasnotaffectedsubstantially.Therejectionofreligionusuallyresultedfrom orwasaccompaniedbytheadoptionofJewish"enlightenment"or,inthelatenineteenthcentury, secularJewishnationalism.Bothdevelopments,oftenoccurringwithinthesamegroups, encouragedthestudyofHebrewanditsadoption,nowasanationallanguageandasymbolof Jewishnationalaspirations(seePelli,1981).Furthermore,therejectionofreligionusuallytook placewhenindividualshadreachedadulthoodandhadcompletedtheirformal,almostuniversally religiouseducation.ThisisevidentinthebiographiesandautobiographiesofPalestine'searly leaders,virtuallyallofwhomwerewellversedinHebrewlanguageandreligiousandsecular literature.Finally,throughouttheJewishexileanimportantbyproductofgeneralliteracyinHebrew andits"livingwrittenlanguage"statuswasitsgeneraluseasalinguafrancaamongJews.Most,if notall,ofPalestine'sJewishmaleswerethuswellpreparedlinguisticallyfortheacquisitionof Hebrewinspokenformtoo.This,too,acceleratedtheprocessconsiderably. THEGREATLEAP:FOURCOMPONENTSINTHETRANSITIONTOHEBREW Identificationofthethreefactorsatworkduringtherevivalthecommunicative,thenational political,andthereligioeducationalfactorsiscrucialnotonlyforanunderstandingoftherevival itself,butalsofordrawingfromitanypossiblegeneralizationsrelevanttobothlanguageplanning andlargescalesecondlanguageacquisition.Initself,however,itdoesnotfullyexplainthegreat leap,ortheactualtransitionofHebrewfromastatusofawrittenlanguagetothatofanativeand onlyormajorvernacularofthelargestsinglesegmentofthecommunity.Thecriticalquestionthen stillremains,namely,howtheselectionofHebrewasthelanguagetoberevivedwasactually implemented,orhowHebrewwasnativized.Thisquestionisparticularlyintriguingsince,asnoted earlier,Yiddishasanativelanguagewasalmostuniversallyspokeninthesettlements,whileitwas therewheretherevival,orthetransition,wasfastestandmosteffective(Bachi,1956). 281

Withfewexceptions(e.g.,BarAdon,1977),thisquestionhashardlybeengiventheattentionit deserves,possiblybecauseoftherevival'sunprecedentednatureorbecausethetransition involvedseeminglyinsignificantlocalactivities,withlittleornosuccessimmediatelynoticed andwithalmostnocentralizedcoordination,allresultinginscantyfirsthandcontemporary documentation. Researchersofotherlanguagerevivalattempts(e.g.,inIrish,Cornish,andWelsh)havefound that,asarule,despitetheauthorities'persuasionorrulings,peoplewillspeakeithertheirnative languageorwhicheverotherlanguagewillhelpthemtomeettheircommunicativeneedsmost effectively.Inthefinalanalysis,"itisthepopulationatlargewhodecidethefateofalanguage"( Edwards,1977:100;cf.Macnamara,1966,1971;Green,1966;James,1977)probablybecause,as inallbehavior,immediaterewardandreinforcementarecriticalforcommunicationaswell.In ruralJewishPalestinepriortotherevival,Yiddishwouldpromisesuchareward.Therehadto exist,therefore,anextremelyuniquesituationthatwouldconstituteanexceptiontothisbehavior principleinwhich,morespecifically,nativespeakersofYiddishwouldspeakHebrew.Itwillbe seenthatsuchanexceptionalsituationindeedprevailedinPalestine'sJewishcommunityinthis period. Recentstudies(e.g.,Fellman,1973;Haramati,1979)haveassertedthattherevivalwascarried outby"theschools"ratherthanbyBenYehuda,the"fatheroftherevival"andhisassociatesin theHebrewLanguageCommitteewhohavebeentraditionallycreditedandidentifiedwithitby oralfolkloreandevenbywritersandscholars(e.g.,St.John,1952;TurSinai,1960).Recognizing theschools'role,however,stillprovidesonlyapartialaccountoftheprocess.Eventhemost effective,successfulteachingmethodologyorschool,includingtherecentlypopularlanguage immersionprograms,willproducebilingualsatbest.Becauseoftheabovebehaviorprinciple, evenunderidealconditionstheeducationsystemalonecannotreplaceitsstudents'native languagewithanotherandhasneverdoneso.Thoughcrucialtotherevivalprocess,Jewish Palestine'sschoolswerenoexception. InoneofthefewstudiesdealingwiththeprocessoftheactualnativizationofHebrew,BarAdon (1977)attributeditto"thechildren"andtheirlanguage:"Bydefinition,onlychildrencould,as theyindeeddid,carryouttheveryprocessofnativizationinModernHebrewfromitsinception. Thisprocessresultedinanativelinguisticcompetence,notpossessedbyanyadultbeforethem"( 1977:489;BarAdon'semphasis).Asintheprocessinvolvedinthenativizationofcreolized languages,Hebrewbecamethecommunity'smajornativelanguageonlyafterthefirstgeneration ofchildrenhadbeen"bornintoit"andspokeitasitsfirstlanguage.BarAdonsuggeststhe notionof"minigenerations"forchildren,"somewhatlikea'schoolyear',"includingpartially overlappinggenerationsofsiblingsandpeers,toexplaintheintensityoftheprocessandits completionwithintwoorthreedecades.Thoughvalidandinteresting,thisthesisstillfailsto explainwhythe"minigenerations"ofchildrenwouldspeakHebrew,eventhoughtheirnative languageandthatoftherestofthecommunitywasYiddish. 282

Nordoesitexplainwhatcausedthelinguisticbehaviorofthechildrenseeminglytocontradicta basicbehaviorprincipleinspeakinganonnativelanguagewhichwasnotexpectedtoresultina direct,immediaterewardintheformofeffectivecommunicationwiththeirinterlocutors.The followingwillattempttoanswerthisquestionandwillproposeaschematicframeworktoexplicate theprocess. ThetransitionfromYiddishintoHebrew,begunandbyandlargecarriedoutinthe"settlements" fromwhichitspreadtotherestofthecommunity,seemstohaveinvolved,aprocessof implementationthatconsistedofaseriesoffourstepsorcomponents:(1)Thecommunity'schildren areinstilledwithdesiredlinguisticattitudes,(2)thechildrenarepresentedwithandacquirethe linguisticmodel,Hebrew,(3)thechildrenspeakandtransferHebrewasasecondlanguageoutof theschools,and(4)thenewlybornreceiveandspeakHebrewasafirstlanguage.Thesesteps, viewedhereschematically,oftenoverlapped.Furthermore,theyinvolvedactivitiesthatwerenot necessarilyconsciouslyaimingatachievingtherevivalofHebrew. TheFirstComponent:TheCommunityChildrenAreInstilledWithDesiredLinguistic Attitudes. IntenselyfavorableattitudestotheHebrewlanguagewereanintegralingredientoftheJewish nationalrevival,asisevidentinnumerouscontemporaryreportsandliteraryworks(e.g.,Ben Yehuda,1881,1918;Ravnitsky,1989;Yudelovitz,1929).Inhisreportontheproceedingsofthefirst conferenceofthePalestineHebrewTeachersAssociation,forexample,Yudelovitzrecordsacallby IsraelBelkind,aleadingearlysettler,tostudentseverywheretostudyHebrew"withalltheirvigor, andcauseittobespokenbytheentirenewgenerationsothatitwillthenbespokenthroughout[the country]"(Yudelovitz,1929,p.94). Intheabsenceofanypoliticalpowerandwithlittleornoimpactontheircollectivedestiny,the settlersviewedalinguisticrevivalastheoneareacompletelyundertheirowncontroland consequentlyamajorchannelintowhichtheirnationalaspirationscouldbedirected.Therefore,the linguisticrevivalwasgenerallyconceivedofasaconditionandatemporarysubstitutefornational, ifnotpolitical,revival.IfthelanguageoftheBible,spokenbytheirforefathersintheirancientfree andindependenthomelandandusedinwrittenformbygenerations,couldonlybespokenagainasa fullylegitimatenationallanguage,amajorbattle,bothrealandsymbolic,wouldbewoninthe strugglefornationalrevival.Thus,thestrengthofthelinguisticattitudetowardHebrewin latenineteenthcenturyJewishPalestinecannotbeoveremphasized. Suchattitudesamongthesettlers,oneofthefactorsinthebackgroundtothelanguagerevival, eventuallyfoundtheirwayintotheschoolsinwhich,accordingtocontemporaryreports,the prestigeofYiddishvisvisHebrewwasverylowindeed.Inhismemoirs,acontemporarystudent recalled,forexample,howevenasearlyas1891,whentheprocesswasjustmakingitsdebut,he discoveredthecomparativestatusofthetwolanguages:"[TheTeacher]announcedintheveryfirst session,'HebrewinHebrew',thatis,forgetYiddishwhichwespokeat 283

homeandlistentoandspeakhislanguage,Hebrew"(Neiman,1963:22).In1907,avisitorto schoolsinseveralsettlementsreportedoftheHebrewteachers'achievementsininstillingtheir youngstudentswiththerightattitudestoHebrew.InGedera,oneoftheearlysettlements,for example,heobservedateacher"teachingallsubjectsinHebrewonly,whileimplantingthe Hebrewspiritintheheartsofthelittleones"(R.Z.L.,1902). ThecombinationoffavorableandunfavorableattitudestoHebrewandYiddish,respectively, producedanatmosphereinwhichchildrencouldnothelpknowingorsensingwhichlanguage wasmoreprestigiousandshouldthusbepreferredifandwhenitwasacquired.Asituation existed,inotherwords,inwhichcommunicatinginHebrewconstitutedamostpowerful reinforcer.Thecommunicativetool,orthelinguisticmodel,however,wasyettobeacquired. Thiswasdoneintheschools. TheSecondComponent:TheChildrenArePresentedWithAndAcquireTheLinguistic Model. Thiswascarriedoutmostlybyteachers(oftenreferredtoas"teacherleaders")inthe "settlements,"particularlywheretheyorotherinterestedactivistsweresuccessfulinestablishing Hebrewasthemediumofinstructionintheschools,oftenfollowingconsiderableresistanceby someteachers,administrators,parents,andotherskeptics.The"teachersleaders"andother proponentsoftherevivalincreasinglyrecognizedthatteachingallsubjectsinHebrewwasa crucialconditiontoitssuccess.Inthis,however,theseteachersandthecooperatingschools encounteredsomeformidablepedagogicalandlinguisticbarriers,ofwhichprobablythemost seriouswastheneedtoteachthestudentsthenonHebrewsubjectsinalanguagetheydidnotyet know. Inordertoovercomethisbarrier,severalschoolsestablished"preparatories"thatwouldprepare theirstudentsforconceptlearninginHebrewbydevotingoneortwoyearspriortoentryinto elementaryschoolatagesixtototalexposuretoHebrewspeech.Thiswastobethe preparatories'onlyobjective,andnoattemptwouldbemadetoteachthestudentsothersubjects. OncetheyhadacquiredproficiencyinHebrew,theywouldenterfirstgradewheretheycouldbe instructedinthislanguage(Azaryahu,1933).Itwasexpected,asstatedbyacontemporary educator,thatinthesepreparatories,"childrenwillgetusedtospeakinHebrewaboutthingsthey seefromanearlyageandtheywillusethelanguagenaturally.Andthen,whentheyenterschool, theywillbepreparedtoreadbooksandunderstandwhattheyread"(Hovav,1902). Thepreparatoriesseemtohavehadsignificantsuccess.BenYehuda'sson,ItamarBenAviv, reportedin1902ofoneinJaffainwhich,onlymonthsafterithadopened,Hebrewcouldbe heard"loud,real,andalive....TheyspeakHebrew....,andinthreemonths!"(BenAviv, 1902:110)Theimpactofthisapproachonthepreparatories'graduatesenteringschoolwasnoted byanotherobserverwhohadvisitedaschoolinZichronYa'akov,oneoftheearlysettlements: "InthefirstgradeIcouldnotbelievewhatIheard.Boysandgirlsaged 284

sevenandeightreadHebrewandshowedwhattheyknewingrammar,history,arithmeticand geographyallinHebrew"(Hazichroni,1902:242). InhissurveyofPalestine'sJewishschoolsintherevivalperiod,JosephAzaryahulater summarizedthepreparatories'overallcontribution: Astotheireffectontherevivalofthelanguageamongthechildren...the kindergartensdidwonders.ThankstothemaloneHebrewbecamethelanguagethe youngstersusedalmostregularly,andwhentheyenteredschooltheycouldcontinue todeveloptheirpotentialnaturallyandpersistently.Moreover,nowthesechildren becamethemosteffectivevehicleforspreadingHebrewspeechamongsttheir families(Azaryahu,1933:79). Anotherleadingcontemporaryeducatorsimilarlyconcludedthatthesekindergartenswere"the very[tool]thatmadeHebrewspokenbothbyourchildrenandbythenextgeneration"(Zuta, 1929:121). TheseHebrewpreparatoriesmaybeviewedasanearly,successfulversionof"language immersion"programs,initiatedandpopularizedinrecentyearsinthefieldofsecondlanguage acquisitionandadoptedparticularlywheregovernmentsorlanguageagenciesattempttoadvance individualbilingualism.Itiswidelyacceptedthatsuchprogramsmayprovetobethemost effective,viableinstrumentforachievingwidespreadindividualand,eventually,group bilingualismincountriessuchasCanada,wherethishasbeenaprimenationalobjective.The onedifferencebetweenthepreparatoriesoftherevivalperiodandmodernimmersionprograms isthatintheimmersionprogramsallsubjectsaretaughtinthetargetlanguage,whiletherevival periodhasattemptedtoteachnospecificsubject.Inthese,thesoleobjectivewastodevelopthe students'communicativeproficiencyinthetargetlanguageaspreparationforfuturestudyinit. Suchstudywouldthenideallybesimilartopresentdayimmersionprograms. Thesettlements'elementaryschoolsand,tosomeextent,theirsecondaryschoolsalsohada criticalroleintheimplementationprocessviatheirteachers.Accordingtonumerousreportsin thecontemporarypress,theseteacherspresentedtheirstudentswiththelinguisticmodeland insistedonitsuseintheirclassroomseversince1888whenthefirstschool(inRishonLetsiyon) establishedthe"HebrewinHebrew"approachandintroducedHebrewasthelanguageof instructionfor"elementaryscience"subjects(Yudelovitz,1929:151).Ateacherwhovisitedthis schoolthreeyearslaterrecalledhisreaction:"IcouldnothavebelievedituntilIwentthereand saw...highschoolstudentsspeaksimple,fluentHebrewledbyexpert,thoroughlydevoted teachers....Hebrewwasthedominant,spokenlanguage"(Grazovsky,1891:3). Reportsonthesituationintherestofthecountryweresimilarlyfavorable,oratleastpromising. AvisitortoPalestinein1908found,forexample,thattheschoolsinboththecitiesandthe settlements"keepimproving...duetotheinfluenceofourculturecarriers'theHebrew teachers.Inmostsettlements... 285

theHebrewteacheristheonlychannelthroughwhichflowthenewcurrentsinliteratureandin life"(BenMoshe,1908:85). Anotherimportant,ifindirect,indicatoroftheteachers'andschools'achievementsistherapid growthinthenumberofHebrewschoolsduringthetransitiontoHebrew,attheexpenseofnon Hebrewschools.Between1903and1913,thisnumbergrewfromatotalofseventeenschools (sixteeninthesettlements),to60.Theynowincluded20kindergartens(10inthesettlements), thirtyfourelementaryschools(twentyeightinthesettlements),twosecondaryschools(inthe TelAviv,Jaffa,andJerusalem),twoteachers'colleges(inJaffaandJerusalem),onevocational school(inPetachTikva,Palestine'sfirstJewishsettlement),andanartschool(inJerusalem) (Azaryahu,1929). Asindicatedabove,students'inabilitytospeakHebrewwasthemajorbarriertoitsuseasa mediumofinstruction,whichledtotheestablishmentofthepreparatories.Therewereseveral otherseverehandicaps,however:(1)Anacuteshortageofqualifiedteachers(Yudelovitz,1929; Azaryahu,1929;Zuta,1929).Intheabsenceofteachertrainingschoolsearlyinthetransition period,somequalifiedteacherswereimported,yetevenmostoftheseknewlittleornoHebrew. Otherteachers,mostlyimmigrants,wereunqualifiedeveninnonHebrewsubjects,butfrequently theirHebrewproficiencywasalsopoor,acquiredasitwasfromthebook(Zuta,1929).(2)A severeshortageofadequatetextsandotherteachingmaterials.(3)Anacuteinadequacyofthe lexiconreflectedmainlybyapaucityoftermsforeverydayconceptssuchasnewspaper,train, match,flowers,andoffice,andoftermsrequiredinteachingthevariousschoolsubjects(see Nahir,1978a).Theseandotherhandicapsconstitutedoneofthechiefreasonsforthe establishmentin1982oftheTeachers'Assembly(Yudelovitz,1929)and,in1903,themore ambitiousandactiveHebrewTeachersAssociation(Kimhi,1929). Contemporaryevidenceleavesnodoubt,then,thatchildrenwerereceivingthelinguisticmodel andacquiringHebrewintheschools.Itoughttobenoted,however,thattheirparents,notably theirfathers,oftencontributedsomewhattotheprocess,too.Asindicatedearlier(see"The ReligioeducationalFactor"),mostmaleshadasolidifusuallypassiveknowledgeofHebrew, albeititsbiblicalorTalmudicvarieties(Rabin,1976;Nahir,1983).Thus,uponbecoming parents,theycouldoftenbehelpfulinprovidingthelinguisticmodeltotheiroffspring, complementingorreinforcingtheteachers'efforts. TheThirdComponent:TheChildrenSpeakAndTransferHebrewAsASecondLanguage OutOfTheSchools. Thisseemstohavebeenthemostcritical,complex,andprobablyunprecedentedstepofthe transition.Ithasalsobeenthemostdifficulttoaccountfororfathom.Havingbeeninstilledwith thedesiredlinguisticattitudes(step1),andhavingacquiredthelinguisticmodel(step2),itwas nowcriticalthatchildrentransfertheuseofHebrewoutoftheschools,viz.,thattheyspeakit, albeitasasecondlanguage,inandoutoftheschoolsinthestreet,withfriends,andeventually intheirhomes.Then,uponreachingadulthood,speakingHebrewwiththeirown 286

childrenwouldcomenaturally,andthecyclewouldbecompleted.This,however,provedtobemuch moredifficulttoaccomplishthantherevivalactivistsexpected,asacontemporarywriterfoundin 1891:"EventheHebrewschoolgraduates,whowerealreadymoreorlessfluentinthelanguage, mostlystoppedspeakingHebrewwhentheywereawayfromschool,especiallyathome" (Smilansky,1930:9). Nevertheless,ascontemporaryevidenceindicates,childrengraduallybegantotransferHebrewout oftheschools.Theyrealized,consciouslyorotherwise,that,althoughtheuseofYiddish,their nativelanguage,wouldresultinanimmediate,tangiblerewardintheformofeffective communication,usingHebrew,eveninadequately,asasecondlanguagewouldresultinamuch morepowerfulreward:(1)itwasthesociallydesirable,prestigiouslanguage,and(2)speakingit wasanimportant,vitalcontributiontonationalrevival(seeabove,"TheNationalPoliticalFactor"). Yiddishhadnosuchprestigeorpromise.Asthechildrenwereconstantlyreminded,itbelongedto anuglypastinforcedexilewhichtheyalloughttoforget.Asitmaybebehaviorallyexpected,they chosetouseHebrewwithitsclearlysuperiorsocialandpoliticalstatus. Suchachoicebythechildrenisabundantlyevidentincontemporaryaccountsandhasledtoan interestingdichotomybetweenthe"children'stongue"andthe"children'smothertongue":"While [Hebrew]isnotyetthechildren'smothertongue,ithasalreadybecomethroughoutthecountrythe children'stongue"(Azaryahu,1910:137).Acontemporarywriterwhosesonhadattendedschoolin Rehovotlaterrecalledhisprogresswhichmusthaveresultedinsuchadichotomy:"Thelanguageof instructionwasHebrewandnaturallyitbecamethelanguagespokenamongthestudents....The schoolwaswellorganized,andthechildrenmadesuchgoodprogressthatHebrewbecamelikea nativelanguagetothem"(LevinEpshtein,1932:210).Similardevelopmentsweretakingplacein othersettlementsaswell.InRishonLetsiyon,forexample,anobserverfoundthat"allthe youngsterswhoattendedschoolspeakandwriteHebrew.Inthestreetsandhomesonecanhear muchHebrewspoken.EverythingformaliscarriedoutinHebrewonly"(Haviv,1910:3).According toareportfromanothersettlement,ZichronYa'akov,"atlastourteachershavenowprevailedand Hebrewisdominantinoursettlement.[You]willfindspeakersofHebrewnotonlyamongthe studentsatschoolbutamongthesettlement'syoungmenandwomenaswell,althoughtheydidnot knowthelanguagebefore;Iwasoneofthem"(Hazichroni,1902:242). Thebridgingbetweentheschoolsandthehomeswasprobablymosteffectivelydonebytheyounger students.TheacquisitionofHebrewwasattimesproceedinginwhatmayseemareversedirection ororder,thatis,fromchildrentoadults,whichisnotuncommoninimmigrants'linguisticbehavior. (Thecaseinpointisdistinct,however,inthatHebrewwasnotthecommunity'sdominantlanguage. Furthermore,itwasstillthenativelanguageoffewornoneofitsmembers):"Thechildren influencedtheirparentsandforcedthemtolearnHebrew....TheKindergartenstudentsbrought Hebrewintothehome.ThemotherswouldthentakeeveningclassesinHebrew...andinthisway asinglelanguagewas 287

createdthemotherchildlanguage"(FeinsodSokenick,1929:266).ApressreportonZichron Ya'akov'syoungerstudentsobservedthatthey"studyeverythinginHebrew....Itisajoytosee theboysandgirlsspeakHebrewamongstthemselves.They...wanttoshoweveryonethat insteadof[Yiddish]whichtheyusedtospeaktheynowspeaktheHebrewlanguage"(Hagkafa, 1902:130). Althoughthetransitionintheurbancenterswas,asindicatedearlier,relativelyslowand sporadic,asimilarbridgeexistedinthesebetweenHebrewuseintheschoolsandinthehomes,a childrentoadultsdirectioninthelanguageacquisitionprocess,asreportedina"lettertothe editor"in1905:"Isawmyfriend'sdaughter,twoyearsandthreemonthsold,speakonlyHebrew andsingbeautifulsongs.YetshedidnotonlylearnhowtospeakHebrewatschool;shehasalso beenteachingherparentswhateversheknows"(Pirhi,1905:5). Anindicator,albeitsomewhatindirect,ofthegrowthinthenumberofthosewhoacquired HebrewasasecondlanguagewastherapidriseinthepopularityandcirculationoftheHebrew press(Kressel,1964).Althoughmanyofthereaderswerenewimmigrantswho,asindicated, hadreasonableHebrewreadingproficiencyaspartoftheir(oftenreligious)educationpriorto theirarrivalinPalestine,mostacquiredHebrew,stillasasecondlanguage,inPalestine'sHebrew schools.Alreadyin1912,itwasobservedthat"thereisalmostno[young]manorwomanwho cannotreadaHebrewnewspaper"(Klausner,1915:256). Thethirdcomponentofthetransition,theuseofHebrewasasecondlanguageoutsidethe schools,culminatedandwasreflectedinthegradualformationofHebrewspeaking"islands" (Haramati,1979:252),inwhichHebrewasasecondlanguagewasgenerallyspokenbythe young.ZichronYa'akovin1902,forexample,wassuchan"island,"accordingtoanenthusiastic observer:"Let...allthosewhodoubttherevivalofourlanguagecometoZichronYa'akov... andseelittlegirlsandoldergirlswalkhandinhand...singingandplayinginHebrew" (Hakafa,1902:236).Thenumberandsizeofsuch"islands"grewasthepartiallyoverlapping fourthcomponentwasinprogressandthetransitionprocesswasnearingitscompletion. TheFourthComponent:TheNewlyBornReceiveHebrewAsAFirstLanguage. Thisistheconclusionorculminationofthetransitionprocess.HavingspokenHebrewasa secondlanguageinandoutoftheschoolsforseveralyears,usuallybetweenoneandtwo decades,childrennowreachedadulthood,married,andhadtheirownchildren.Sincethe nationalandlinguisticattitudesthathadbeeninstilledinthesenewparentswhentheywere childrenstillprevailedandweresufficientlypowerful,probablywithnationalpolitical aspirationsevenstrengthened,thelanguagespokeninthenewhomeswiththenewlybornwas naturallytobeHebrew.TothisnewgenerationHebrewwasnowanativeandoftenonly language,spokennaturallyandinallaspectsoflife. Atthisstage,whenagrowingnumberofchildrenspeakHebrewasanativelanguage,while manyolderchildrenandyoungadultsandsomeolderadults 288

speakHebrewbutstillasasecondlanguage,aclearchildrentoadultdirectionisseentohave developedintheacquisitionandspreadofthelanguage.Anewspaperarticlein1907reports,for example,thatwhenZichronYa'akov'snewphysicianwastodeliverhisfirstpubliclecture,his decisiontodosoinHebrewwassomewhatsurprising,sinceonlychildrenwereexpectedtofully masterthelanguage:"ThepublichereisusedtohearingschoolchildrenchatterinHebrew,butthey didnotexpectalearnedphysiciantouseit"(Hakafa,1907:3).Itseemsthatatleasttosome observersthedistinctionbetweenthegenerations'linguisticbehaviorwasevensharper.Aneducator visitingPalestine'sJewishcommunitiesin1910foundthat"theyounggeneration...speaks Hebrew,andtheoldalmostallspeakYiddish"(Berkman,1911:31).Finally,HaimBrenner,a prominentwriter,whohadseriousdoubtsabouttherevivabilityandviabilityofHebrewasa vernacular,laterrecalledwhathadchangedhisview:"WhatwonmeovertotheHebrewlanguage [were]theschoolchildren.Theywerethecriticalfactor"(Kushnir,1944:143). Asintheprevioussteps,themovetothisfourthstepcannotbepreciselydemarcatedordelineated. ThenativeuseofHebrewbythenewlybornwastakingplaceconcurrentlyandinanoverlapping fashioninaneverincreasingnumberofnewfamilies.Whenthenumberofsuchfamilieswas sufficientlylargetoconstituteanobservable,significantspeechcommunity,Hebrewcanbe consideredtohavebeenrevivedasavernacular.Thefinalcomponentofthetransitionmaybe deemedtohavetakenplaceapproximatelybetween1905and1915.Inthisperiodthefirstsizable agegroupsofchildrenwhospokeHebrewasasecondlanguagematuredandhadtheirown children,nowspeakersofHebrewasafirstlanguage. AtthispointasignificantHebrewspeechcommunitywasobservedandevenquantified,andthe transitionprocess,ortherevival,completed.Accordingtothe1916census,40percentofPalestine's Jews(thirtyfourthousandofeightyfivethousandagedtwoandover)spokeHebrewasan"onlyor firstlanguage"(Census,1918;Bachi,1956).Itisevenmoresignificant,however,thatthis percentagewasconsiderablyhigheramongtheyoungapproximately75percentinthesettlements andinthetownofTelAviv,foundedafewyearsearlier,wheretheHebrewschoolsystemwasmost firmlyestablished.RobertoBachi,aleadingstatisticianoftherevival,assertedthatbyWorldWar I"thefutureofHebrewwasguaranteed...duetothefactthatithadbecometheyounger generation'smajorlanguage"(Bachi,1956:80). THEREVIVALANDPLANNINGAGENCIES TherestorationofHebrewtovernacularstatuswasbyandlargetheresultofacombinationofsteps takenbysmallgroupsofhighlymotivated,extremelydeterminedteachersparticularly,thoughnot exclusively,inPalestine'sJewishagriculturalsettlements.Asassertedbyaleadingcontemporary educator,"Thisgreatmiracle...wasperformedbytheHebrewschools.Theschoolswerenot 289

oneofthefactorsintherevival....Theywerethetool...whichcarriedoutthegreatrevolution thetransformationofaliterarylanguageintothelanguageofthepeople,thelanguageoflife" (Arnon,1947:40). Whilethediscussionaboveconcurswiththisstatement,itoughttobenotedthatthroughoutthe revivalperiodcertainotherbodieswerealsoinvolved.Someoftheiractivitiesacceleratedthe processsomewhat,thusprobablyreducingthetimerequiredtocompleteitscycle.Themajor participatinggroupsweretheHebrewLanguageCommittee,theHebrewTeachers'Association,and thenewlyformedlabormovement. TheHebrewLanguageCommittee(transformedin1953,followingtheestablishmentin1948ofthe StateofIsrael,intothegovernmentsponsoredHebrewLanguageAcademy)wasfoundedin Jerusalemin1890byEliezerBenYuhudaandhisassociates,C.HirshensonandC.Calmi,withthe objectiveofrevivingHebrewasavernacularandasamediumforallcommunication.Despiteits reputationasthe"reviverofHebrew,"however,mostoftheCommittee'simpactwasinplanningthe corpusratherthanthestatusofthelanguage(seeFellman1973;Nahir1978a,inpress).Infact,even thisimpactwasverylimitedsince,duetovariousdifficulties,theCommitteewaswhollyinactive duringthecriticalyearsandwasdisbandedalmostassoonasithadbeenformed,regroupingonlyin 1903,whentheRevivalwaswellunderway.AstoBenYehuda,the"fatherofModernHebrew,""a closeobservation...willrevealthathisfailurewasinhisimplementationeffortswhilehisimpact ontherevivalwasinhiscodificationwork"(Nahir,1978c),primarilytheexpansionoftheHebrew lexicon.Hisroleinthestatusplanningaspectoftherevivalwasatbestthatofavisionaryoragrand prophet.Inthis,asinhislexicalwork,hemadeextensiveuseofhisweeklynewspaperHatsvi,in whichherepeatedlycalledforsupportoftheRevival.Tobesure.,hiscodificationactivitiesdid havesomeindirect,complementaryimpactontheimplementationaspectoftheRevivalandthe spreadofHebrew,too,inthatitfacilitatedsomewhatcommunicationinthelanguage,thusmaking itsstudy,acquisitionandusenotonlymoreeffectivebutmorefeasibleaswell. TheHebrewTeachers'Associationwasestablishedin1903,afteranattemptatorganizingthe Hebrewteachersadecadeearlierhadendedinfailurefouryearslater.Mostofitsactivities includedbothprofessionalimprovementsinthequalityofitsmembers'performanceandattemptsto solvethecountlessdifficultiestheywereconstantlyfacinginteachingalanguage,orinalanguage whichwasstilllackingtermsfornumerousbasicmodernconcepts.Itsdeclaredobjectiveswere"(a) toimproveJewisheducationinPalestineandtomakeitsschoolsJewishnationalHebreworiented. (b)TherevivaloftheHebrewlanguageandtheJewishspiritintheschools.(c)Toimprove conditionsfortheteachers"(Azaryahu1929:720).TheAssociation'sactivitiesduringtherevival andsincehaveincludedorganizingprofessionalconferences,variouscourses,workshops,and intensiveteachertrainingprograms.Italsopublishedajournal,Hahinuch(Education),andother professionalliterature(Kimhi,1929;Chomsky, 290

1957).Althoughmuchofthisactivityduringtherevivalaimedatthecodificationofmodern Hebrew,italsohadanimpact,bothdirectandindirect,onitsstatus,thatis,itsimplementationand acceptancebythechildrenthroughtheirteachersandbyadultsaswell,bothinthesettlementsand intherestofthecountry. Finally,thethenemerginglabormovementcontributedtotherevival,particularlythroughits influenceonitsfastgrowingmembership.This,however,beganonlyaftertheturnofthecentury, withthearrivalofanew(second)waveofimmigrantsfollowingpogromsinEasternEuropeandthe subsequentnewriseinJewishnationalism,whenthetransitionwasalreadynearingitscompletion. Nevertheless,thenumerousadultHebrewcoursesofferedandorganizedbythemovementandthe manyfacetedencouragementitgavetotheacquisitionanduseofHebrewbyitsmembersandother adultsservedasanimpetustotheentrenchmentandfurtheraccelerationofanongoingprocess. CONCLUSIONS Aschematicpresentationofafourcomponentcyclehasbeenusedinthisstudyinanattemptto explaintheprocessesthatattheturnofthecenturyledtoatransitionfromtheuseofYiddishand otherlanguagestoHebrewinJewishPalestine.Viewedbroadly,theprocessmayalsobeseenas masslanguageacquisitionasawaytoachievealanguageplanninggoalspeech(orlanguage) revival.Ithasalsobeenshownthatthetransitionwouldhavebeenvirtuallyimpossiblewithoutthe crucialcontributionoftheprevailingsocioculturalandsociolinguisticfactors,duringandevenprior tothebeginningoftheprocess.Thecommunity'schildren,forexample,couldnothavebeen instilledwiththerequiredlinguisticattitude(ComponentI),norcouldHebrewhavebeentransferred outoftheschoolstobespokenbythechildrenuniversallyasasecondlanguage(ComponentIII), haditnotbeenfortheprevalenceofthenationalpoliticalfactor.Similarly,withoutthereligio educationalfactor,introducingthelinguisticmodelandtheacquisitionofHebrewasasecond languagebythechildren(ComponentII)wouldhavebeeninconceivable.Thereseemstobeno doubt,therefore,thattherevivalasawholewaspossibleonlybecause,oncecertainconditionshave beenmet,theactualtransitionwastakingplacewhileseveralsocioculturalfactorswere concurrentlyatwork.Therevivalwassocomplex,andhasbeenviewedasaninexplicable phenomenon,justbecauseacombinationofboththeseforceswasrequiredforittobe accomplished.Nosimilarcombinationisknowntohavebeenproducedbyhistory. Asindicated,thetransitiontoHebrewwasacollectiveeffortbyasmall,highlymotivated communityspearheadedbyadecentralized,yetdevotedgroup,ofHebrewschoolteachers.Ithas beenseen,however,thatactivitiesbyseveralbodiestheHebrewLanguageCommittee,the Teachers'Association,andtheLaborUnionacceleratedtheprocessandsomewhatreducedthe timerequiredtocompleteitscycle.Finally,havingbeenrevived,standardized,andlexically modernized,Hebrewintoday'sIsraelhasavirtuallymonolingualstatus.Tothe 291

extentthatbilingualismexists,itiswithfewexceptionsindividual.Itsimpactonthecurrentstatus ofHebreworitscorpusisprobablymarginal.Thus,thecyclewhichwithinlessthanacenturyhas transformedasmall,partlymultilingualandpartlyYiddishspeakingcommunityofseveral thousandintothepresentdayHebrewspeechcommunityof4millionseemstohaverunitscourse.5 NOTES 1. IhaveborrowedthistermfromWilgaM.Rivers,"TalkingOfftheTopsofTheirHeads," TESOLQuarterly6(1972):7181.ReprintedinW.M.Rivers,CommunicatingNaturallyina SecondLanguage(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983),pp.4154. 2. Forthedistinctionsbetweenlanguagerevivalandspeechrevival,seeNahir(1977a). 3. TranslationfromHebrew,likeallothersinthisstudy,arebythewriter. 4. These"settlements"(moavot)mustnotbeconfusedwiththemuchbetterknownKibbutzim (collectivefarms),ofwhichthefirst,Kineret,wasestablishedonlyin1909,whentherevival wasclosetocompletion. 5. ItshouldbementionedthatArabicisalsooneofIsrael'stwoofficiallanguages,spokenby abouttenpercentofthepopulation.ArabicHebrewbilingualismhassofarnotbeen investigatedbysociolinguists. BIBLIOGRAPHY AhadHa'am(AsherGinsberg).1903." ThiyatHaruach [TheRevivaloftheSpirit]".InKolKitvey AhadHa'am(AhadHa'am'sWritings) ,ed.H.Roth.TelAviv:Dvir,1946;rpt.1961. ArnonAvraham.1947."SixtyYearsoftheHebrewSchoolinPalestine."HedHahinuch21,9 (Hebrew):840. Azaryahu(Ozrakovsky),Joseph.1910."BateyHaseferBe'eretsYisrael[TheSchoolsintheLandof Israel]".Hahinuch1,2 . .1929."HahinuchHa'ivriBe'eretsYisrael [HebrewEducationintheLandofIsrael]".InD. Kimhi,ed.,pp. 57112. .1933."TheFirstKindergartenintheLandofIsrael."Bitaon(Chicago)3,34(Hebrew).Rpt.in JosephAzaryahu'sWritings,Vol.3.TelAviv:Massada,1954. BachiRoberto.1956."AStatisticalAnalysisoftheRevivalofHebrewinIsrael(andPalestine)." ScriptaHierosolymitana3:179247. .1974.ThePopulationofIsrael.Jerusalem:HebrewUniversityofJerusalem. BarAdonAaron.1977."OntheNativizationofModernHebrewandtheRoleofChildreninthe Process."InStudiesinDescriptiveandHistoricalLinguistics:FestschriftforWinfredP.Lehmann, ed.P.J.Hopper.Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsB.V. BenAvivI.1902."TheHebrewKindergarteninJaffa."Hakafa3:14. BenMosheY.1908."ALetterfromtheLandofIsrael."Ha'olam2,6. BenYehudaEliezer.1881."MixtavLevenYehuda[ALettertoBenYehuda]".InR.Sivan,ed.,1978, pp.4954. 292

.1917/18."HahalomVeivro[TheDreamandItsFulfillment]".InBenYehuda:Selected Writings(Hebrew),ed.R.Sivan,pp.55132. .1918."TehiyatTsiburIvriBe'eretsYisrael [TheRevivalofaHebrewCommunityintheLand ofIsrael]".InR.Sivan,ed.,1978,pp.23238. BerkmanY.1911.Be'eretsHatikvaMasaLe'eretsYisrael[IntheLandofHopeAJourneytothe LandofIsrael].Warsaw:Hatikva. BettsC.1976.CultureinCrisis:TheFutureoftheWelshLanguage.Upton,Wirral:FfynnonPress. BourhisRichardY.1984."Introduction:PoliciesinMultilingualSettings."InConflictand LanguagePlanninginQuebec,ed.R.Y.Bourhis.London:MultilingualMatters,pp.128. CensusofPalestineJews.1918.Jaffa:PalestineZionistOrganization(Hebrew). ChomskyWilliam.1957.Hebrew:TheEternalLanguage.Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety ofAmerica. CollectionofDocuments(LeketTeudot).1970.Jerusalem:HebrewLanguageAcademy. DeutschKarlW.1942."TheTrendofEuropeanNationalismTheLanguageAspect."American PoliticalScienceReview36:53341.ReprintedinReadingsintheSociologyofLanguage,ed.J.A. Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,1968,pp.598606. DomhnallainThomasO.1977."Ireland:TheIrishLanguageofEducation."LanguageProblems andLanguagePlanning1,2:8395. EdwardsJohn.1977.ReviewofP.B.Ellis,1974;Mackinnon,1974;C.Betts,1976.Language ProblemsandLanguagePlanning1,2:97102. EllisP.B.1974.TheCornishLanguageandItsLiterature.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. FeinsodSokenickH.1929."TheDevelopmentoftheKindergarten."HedHahinuch3:1415. FellmanJack.1973.TheRevivalofaClassicalTongue:EliezerBenYehudaandtheModern HebrewLanguage.TheHague:Mouton. FishmanJoshuaA.1971."TheImpactofNationalismonLanguagePlanning:SomeComparisons BetweenEarlyTwentiethCenturyEuropeandMoreRecentYearsinSouthandSoutheastAsia."In CanLanguageBePlanned?,ed.J.RubinandB.H.Jernudd.Honolulu:UniversityPressofHawaii, pp.320. GrazovskyY.1891."LettersfromtheLandofIsrael."Hamelits31:86. GreenDavid.1966.TheIrishLanguage.Dublin:CulturalRelationsCommitteeofIreland. HaramatiShlomo.1979.TheRoleoftheHebrewTeacherinRevivingtheHebrewLanguage:1882 1914.Jerusalem:RubinMass(Hebrew). Hakafa.1902."FromtheSettlementsZichronYa'akov"3:17,31. .1907."ZichronYa'akov,"8,52. HaugenEinar.1966.LanguageConflictandLanguagePlanning:TheCaseofModernNorwegian. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. .1983."TheImplementationofCorpusPlanning:TheoryandPractice."InProgressin LanguagePlanning,ed.J.CobarrubiasandJ.A.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,pp.26989. HavivD.(Laubman).1910."OnYiddishAFurtherResponsetoBenYehuda."Ha'or1:128. "Hazichroni."1902."LettertotheEditor."Hakafa3:32.

293

HermanSimonR.1968."ExplorationsintheSocialPsychologyofLanguageChoice."In ReadingsintheSociologyofLanguage,ed.JoshuaA.Fishman,TheHague:Mouton,pp.492 511. HeydUriel.1954.LanguageReforminModernTurkey.Jerusalem:IsraelOrientalSociety. HoffmanJohnE.,andHayaFisherman.1971."LanguageShiftandMaintenanceinIsrael." InternationalMigrationReview5,2:20426.ReprintedinAdvancesintheSociologyof Language,ed.J.A.Fishman.Vol.2.TheHague:Mouton,1972,pp.34264. HovavH.1902."SomeCommentsonEducatingtheChildren."Hakafa3:14. JamesCarl.1977."WelshBilingualismFactandFriction."LanguageProblemsandLanguage Planning1,2:7382. Katz,Elihu,MichaelGurevich,etal.1972.TarbutYisrael(TheCultureofIsrael),2vols. Jerusalem:IsraelInstituteofSocialResearchandtheCommunicationsInstituteofHebrew University. KimhiDavid,ed.1929.SeferHayovelLeagudatHamorim(19031928)(TheTeachers' AssociationJubileeBook[19031928]).Jerusalem:Teachers'Association. KlausnerJ.1915.OlamMithave(AWorldBeingFormed).Odessa. KresselG.1964.ToldotHa'itonutHa'ivritBe'eretsYisrael(HistoryoftheHebrewPressinthe LandofIsrael).Jerusalem:HasifriyaHatsiyonit. KushnirM.,ed.1944.YosefHaimBrennerMivharZichronotay(JosephHaimBrenner: SelectedMemoirs).TelAviv:HakibutzHameuhad,p.143. LevinEpshteinA.Z.1932.Zichronotay(Memoirs).TelAviv:LevinEpshtein. MacnamaraJohn.1966.BilingualismandPrimaryEducation:AStudyofIrishExperience. Edinburgh:UniversityPress. .1971."SuccessandFailuresintheMovementfortheRestorationofIrish."InCanlanguage BePlanned?eds.J.RubinandB.H.Jernueld.Hawaii:UniversityPressofHawaii,pp.6594. NadelElizabeth,andJoshuaA.Fishman.1977."EnglishinIsrael:ASociolinguisticStudy,"The SpreadofEnglish,ed.JoshuaA.Fishmanetal.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse,pp.13767. NahirMoshe.1977a."LanguageRevivalversusSpeechRevival:AQuestionofTerminology." LanguagePlanningNewsletter4:7. NahirMoshe.1977b."TheFiveAspectsofLanguagePlanning:AClassification."Language ProblemsandLanguagePlanning2,2,89102 NahirMoshe.1978b."NormativismandEducatedSpeechinModernHebrew."International JournaloftheSociologyofLanguage18:4967.Rpt.HebrewTeachingandAppliedLinguistics,

ed.M.Nahir.Washington,D.C.:UniversityPressofAmerica,1981,pp.35582. NahirMoshe.1978c.ReviewofTheRevivalofaClassicalTongue:EliezerBenYehudaandthe ModernHebrewLanguage,byJackFellman.LanguageProblemsandLanguagePlanning.2, 3:17781 NahirMoshe.1979."LexicalModernizationinHebrewandtheExtraAcademyContribution." NationalLanguagePlanningandTreatment,ed.RichardE.Wood.SpecialIssue,Word30,12. Pp.105116. NahirMoshe.1983."SocioculturalFactorsintheRevivalofHebrew."LanguageProblemsand LanguagePlanning7,3,26384. 294

.1984."LanguagePlanningGoals:AClassification."LanguageProblemsandLanguage Planning8,3:294327. .Inpress."StatusPlanningandCorpusPlanninginModernHebrew."InComparative LanguagePlanning,ed.JacquesMaurais,Quebec:Conseildelalanguefrancaise. NeimanD.1963.IntheBeginningtheNation,theLanguageandtheState18811961.TelAviv: Author'sPublication. PaulstonChristinaB.1985."BilingualismandBilingualEducation:AnIntroduction."This Volume. PelliMoshe.1981."RevivalofHebrewandRevivalofthePeople:TheAttitudeoftheFirst MaskilimtotheHebrewLanguage."InHebrewTeachingandAppliedLinguistics,ed.M.Nahir. Washington,D.C.:UniversityPressofAmerica,pp.97123. PeresIsaiah.1964.MeaanaBirualayim(OneHundredYearsinJerusalem).Jerusalem:Rubin Mass. PirhiJ.1905."AQuestiontotheFoundersoftheKindergarten."Hakafa,6:21. PopulationandHousingCensus.1961.Jerusalem:IsraelGovernmentPublications. R.Z.L.1902."LettertotheEditor."Hakafa3:23. RabinChaim.1976."LiturgyandLanguageinJudaism."InLanguageinReligiousPractice,ed. W.J.Samarin.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse,pp.13155. RavnitskyYitshak.1890."ASimple,ClearLanguage." Kaveret(Odessa):2732. RosenbaumYehudit.1983."HebrewAdoptionAmongNewImmigrantstoIsrael:TheFirst ThreeYears."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage41:11530. RubinJoan.1971."AViewTowardstheFuture."InCanLanguageBePlanned?,ed.J.Rubin andB.H.Jernudd.Honolulu:UniversityPressofHawaii,pp.30710. St.RobertJohn.1952.TongueoftheProphets:TheLifeStoryofEliezerBenYehuda.NewYork: n.p. SivanReuven,ed.1978.EliezerBenYehudaHahalomVeivro:MivharKtavinBe'inyeney Laon(EliezerBenYehudaTheDreamandItsFulfillment:SelectedWritingsonLanguage Issues).Jerusalem:BialikInstitute. SmilanskyZe'ev.1930."LetoldotHadiburHa'ivriBe'eretsYisrael[OntheHistoryofHebrew SpeechintheLandofIsrael]".Hapo'elHatsa'ir23,7. TurSinaiN.H.1960.TheRevivaloftheHebrewLanguage.Jerusalem:HacohenPress. YudelovitzDavid.1929."ZichronotRionim[EarlyReminiscences]".InD.Kimhi,ed.,pp.150

56. ZutaHaim.1929." Bema'aleHahar[UptheMountain]".InD.Kimhi,ed.,pp.11229. 295

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 296

 14 CREOLEENGLISHANDEDUCATIONINJAMAICA DennisR.Craig HISTORICALANDDEMOGRAPHICBACKGROUND Jamaica,originallycolonizedbytheSpanish,wascapturedbytheEnglishin1655.Withinafew years,alltheSpanishsettlershadleft,mostofthemgoingtoCuba,andwiththemtheir language,exceptforafewplacenames:RioCobre,MountDiablo,RioBueno,OchoRios,and soon,whichsurviveuntiltoday.ThememoryoftheSpanishpresenceisalsoindicatedtodayby referencessuchasSpanishTownfortheoldSpanishcapitaloftheislandthennamedSt.Jago; Spanishwall:atypeofwallbuiltofstonesandmortar;Spanishjar:alargeearthenwarejar originallydesignedforstoringwater;andafewothersimilarreferences. PrecedingthecomingoftheEnglish,theoriginalinhabitantsoftheisland,tribesofArawak Indians,hadbeenrapidlyexterminatedbytheSpaniards,andtheArawaklanguagehadsuffered thesamefatethatSpanishwouldlatersuffer.LikeSpanishwords,afewArawakwordsstill survive:Mamee(Maima)Bay;"buccaneers,"fromtheArawakpirates'practiceofbarbecuing meat(boucan)onsticksoverafire;andtheword"Xaymaca,"thenameoftheisland(saidto mean,"landofwoodandwater")nowmodified,viaSpanish,intoJamaica. Withtherapiddisappearance,throughwarordisease,oftheindigenousIndianpopulation,the Spaniards,likeallcolonizingnationsatthattime,importedAfricanslavesforworkonthe plantationsthatwereestablished.WhentheSpaniardsleft,theytooktheirslaveswiththem,buta numberofescapedslaves,Maroons,inthiscaseSpanishMaroons,saidtohavenumberedabout threehundred,remainedlivinginthehillswheretheyhadestablishedthemselves.Thelanguage oftheseSpanishMaroonsmusthaveresembledtheoriginalSpanish/Portuguesebasedpidgin languagethathassurvivedtodayasthecreolelan 297

guagePapiamentu,spokenintheNetherlandsAntilles;butnothingmuch,withanycertainty,is knownabouttheactuallanguageoftheSpanishMaroonsinJamaica.TheseSpanishMaroons wouldsubsequentlyhavebeenjoinedbythemuchlargernumbersofescapedslavesfromthe Englishplantationsoverthenexttwocenturiesafter1655.ThisinfluxofnewEnglishinfluenced MaroonsevidentlyestablishedintheMaroonsettlementsanolder,andmoreAfricaninfluenced, formoftheEnglishlexiconlanguage,nowknownasJamaicanCreole. F.Cassidy(1961)quotesBryanEdwardswho,describingtheMaroonsin1776,said:"Their languagewasabarbarousdissonanceoftheAfricandialects,withamixtureofSpanishandbroken English."ButCassidycontinues: "was"issignificant;forDallas,whoknewtheMaroonsintimately,wroteonlyseven yearslater:"TheMaroonsingeneralspeak,likemostoftheotherNegroesintheisland, apeculiardialectofEnglish,corruptedwithAfricanwords;andcertainlyunderstood ourlanguagewellenoughtohavereceived(religious)instructioninit." R.Dallas'accountfitswellwiththatofE.Long(1774)who,speakingofthenativepopulationin general,said,"ThelanguageoftheCreolesisbadEnglishlardedwiththeGuineadialect." ThecommentsofearlywriterslikeDallasandLongconcerningwhatisnowknownasJamaican Creoleindicatethedominanceoflexicalconsiderationsinattemptstodescribethelanguage.That dominancepersistedforatleastthenextcenturyandahalf,andresultedinJamaicanspeechbeing generallyregardedasacarelessformofEnglish,sincetheJamaicanlexisconsistslargelyofEnglish words.However,apartfromasmallnumberofclearlyAfricanderivedwords,theinfluenceof AfricanlanguagesonJamaicanCreoleisprobablytobeseeninthesyntacticandsemanticaspects ofthelanguagewhichdiffersignificantlyfromEnglish,andwhichwillbeoutlinedbelow.Wesay "probably"withreferencetoAfricaninfluencesbecausethereisacontinuingcontroversyasto whetherthesuggestedsyntacticandsemanticaspectsderivefromamedievalEuropeanbased linguafranca,orfromAfricanlanguageinfluences,orfromlanguageuniversalsthatmanifest themselveswheneverhumanbeingshavetocreatelanguageanew.See,forexample,theinitial argumentsinD.Bickerton(1981). After1655,thenumberofAfricanslavesimportedforworkontheEnglishplantationsoverthenext centurywassolargethatitbecameasubjectofconcerntotheBritishgovernmentbecauseofthe constantthreatofslaverebellionsandthediminishingproportionsofwhitepeopleinthecountry, apartfromtheplantationownersandoverseers.Bythe1730s,thenumberofMaroonshadgrownto thepointwheretheBritishwereforcedtofightanumberofwarsagainstthem,endinginatreaty thatpermanentlyestablishedtheMaroonsettlementsinJamaica.Afterwards,theBritish governmentactivelyencouragedBritishsubjects(Irish,Scottish,etc.)tosettleintheisland,sothat theproportionofthewhite, 298

asdistinctfromtheblack,populationmightbeincreased.Nevertheless,theproportionofwhites continuedtoremainsmalloverthenextcentury.R.LePage(1960)givesadetailedaccountofthe importationofpeopleintoJamaica;themostreliableearlyhistoriesoftheislandarethoseofE. Long(1774)andB.Edwards(1793). In1838,theendoftheapprenticeshipperiodaftertheabolitionofslaveryin1834,mostofthelabor ontheplantationswasstillperformedbyblacksofAfricandescent.Atthattime,theseformerslaves celebratedtheirnewfreedombymovinginlargenumbersawayfromtheplantationsand establishingindependentvillagesoftheirown.Asaresult,forthenexthalfcentury,theplantation ownersimportedanumberofindenturedlaborersfromIndiafirst,thenfromChina,and,in addition,somelaborers(thoughnotasignificantnumber)fromPortugal.TheseIndians,Chinese, andPortugueseimmigrantsdidnotproveeffectivelaborersinJamaica,andtheirnumbersnever becamesignificant.Theysurviveassmallminoritiestoday,sosmallthattheirrespectivelanguages havehadnoappreciableimpactonthemainstreamofJamaicanspeech.Thenumericaldominance oftheblack,Africandescended,andformerslavepopulationthereforepersistsuptothepresent:of atotalpopulationof1,797,399,90percent(1,634,686)consistsoftheoriginalAfricanpopulation, 17percentisofEastIndianorigin,whileonly0.7percent(11,926)isofEuropeanandNorth Americanbackground.TheChineseaccountfor0.7percent,andtherestareraciallymixedor "other." ItcanbeexpectedthatallpersonsbornandbroughtupinJamaicaare,incasual,everydayspeech, speakersofJamaicanCreole.Dependingoneducationandsocialclass,however,probablyabout20 percentofsuchpersonswouldbeaccustomed,ineverydayliving,toswitchfromCreoleintoalocal varietyofStandardEnglish,whichhassometimesbeenreferredtoasStandardJamaicanEnglish; theremaining80percentorsoofJamaicanCreolespeakerscanalso,whensocialoccasionsdemand it,switchfromthemoreextremeformsofJamaicanCreoleintoaformoflanguage,amesolect,that isintermediatebetweenCreoleandEnglish.MorewillbesaidlateraboutthesetypesofJamaican speech. SOCIALSTRUCTUREANDLANGUAGEATTITUDES OneearlylegacyfromplantationslaveryinJamaicawasasocietywithsharpdivisionsintermsof raceandcolor.Beingwhiteautomaticallymeantbeingofanuppersocialclass,whetherrichor poor;beingmixedorofbrowncomplexionmeantbeingnextinthesocialhierarchy;andbeingblack meantbeingofthelowestsocialclass.However,thenumericaldominanceandtheoftenfierce militancyoftheblackJamaicanpopulationmeantthattheraceandcolorsituationwasforcedto beginchangingsoonafterabout1900.MarcusGarvey(18871940),borninJamaica,isonlythe mostinternationallyfamousoftheblacksinJamaicawhovoicedearlyobjectionstothetraditionsof privilegewhichhadbeenpassedonfromtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.Bytheendofthe 299

1930s,therewasastrongtradeunionmovementinJamaicawhichsubsequentlygaveriseto politicalpartiesthatstroveforthesocialandpoliticalequalityofallpersons.Bythe1950s,the numericaldominanceoftheblackJamaicanpopulationmeantthatraceandcolor,asfactorsin socialandeconomicactivity,hadalmostcompletelydisappeared,persistingprobablyonlyincertain smallandcovertpocketsofendeavor.Theyhadbeenreplacedbymaterialwealthandeducationas thedeterminantsofsocialclass.SomeinsightfuldiscussionsofthissituationareavailableinClarke (1966),Henriques(1968),Kuper(1969),Nettleford(1970),Norris(1962),andManley(1974),to mentionjustafewoftherelevantreferences. Theimportanceofeducationatthistimeunderscoredtheimportanceofthetraditionalofficial language:English.Fromtheearliesttimes,theviewpointhadexisted,evenamongupwardly aspiringhabitualspeakersofJamaicanCreole,thatJamaicanCreolewasaformof"bad"and "broken"English,a"patois"causedbythecarelessnessandslovenlyhabitsofthelowestsocial class.ThechiefcontributortothisviewisthefactthatJamaicanCreoleandEnglishlargelysharea commonvocabulary;consequently,itiseasyfortheillusiontodevelopthatphonological differencesbetweenJamaicanCreoleandEnglisharenotthemanifestationofdifferent phonologicalsystems,butsimplytheresultofbadhabitsonthepartofJamaicanCreolespeakers. Thesameillusionapplies,andevenmoreso,tomorphologicalandsyntacticdifferences,again becauseofthelargelycommonlexicon. Undertheinfluenceoftheviewpointreferredto,andfacilitatedbythecommonvocabulary, JamaicanCreolespeakershadalwaystendedtorepresentthemselvesasspeakersofEnglish.Such representationwassupportedbythefactthatmostCreolespeakers,merelybybeing"careful,"were capableofshiftingtheirspeech,asmentionedearlier,awayfromtheirmostcharacteristicformsof Creoleintoa"mesolect"thatatleastinitssoundsandmorphologymorecloselyresembledEnglish. MorewillbesaidsubsequentlyaboutbothCreoleandthemesolect,butthepointatthemomentis thatthewayupwardlyaspiringCreolespeakersregardedtheirlanguage,togetherwiththecommon featuressharedbythatlanguageandEnglish,madeitpossibleforaneducationalpolicytopersistin whichEnglishwasregardedasthemothertongueofallJamaicanchildrenenteringschool.Atleast uptothe1950s,itwasstillpossibletofindschoolsinJamaicawherechildrenwereforbidden,under threatofpunishment,frombeingheardspeakingCreoleintheclassroom.Onesavingfactortosuch children,however,wasthatmanyteachersthemselves,beingexclusivelyCreolespeakersatsome earlierphaseoftheirlives,oftenlapsedintoCreolethemselves,andconsequentlywerenotalways consciousoftheirchildren'slapses. Inthissituation,itisnotsurprisingthattheeducationalsystemconstantlycomplainedaboutthe deficienciesofschoolleavers'English.Asearlyas1946,aneducationalcommissionunderL.L. Kandel,appointedbytheBritishcolonialgovernmentofthattime,pointedoutthattheneedfor alarmaboutEnglishproficiencyinJamaicawasmuchgreaterthanitwasinBritainitselfwhere 300

complaintswerealsobeingvoiced.Evenso,thepolicyoftheeducationalsystem,inbeing merelynegativetoCreole,continuedasbefore. B.Bailey(1964)summeduptheJamaicanlanguageattitudesituationasfollows: Itispossibletomovefromonesocialclasstoanotherbychangingone'slinguistic norm.Thisisofcourseduetoanotherfactor,thecorrelationbetweenagood educationandacceptableEnglish,whichmakesitpossibletoassumethatabilityto manipulateSJE(StandardJamaicanEnglish)isindicativeofagoodeducation,in addition,ofcourse,tobirthinahighercasteor"class." DespitethisearlystigmatizingofJamaicanCreole,Jamaicansocietypossessesarichheritageof folktales,songs,andoralculture,generallyinCreole.Thebestexamplesareperhapstobeseen inthewritingsofLouiseBennett(e.g.,1942,1943,1950)andinthesubsequentcollectionof Bennett'soriginalpoemsinCreole(Bennett,1966).Precedingtheseworksaretheexamplesof popularhumorandcommentwhichstillcontinuetoappeareverydayinthecountry'snewspaper, TheGleanerforexample,theitemsunderthepseudonymof"Quashie"inthe1940sand1950s, andthepresentdayCreolelanguagecartoonsofLeandro.Itisonlyashortremovefromthis creativityinJamaicanCreoletothatwhichhasbecomeknownworldwideinpresentdaypopular entertainment:"rocksteady"and"reggae"music,asintherecordingsofBobMarley,"D.J." songsasintherecordsof"YellowMan"(WinstonFoster),and"Dub"poetryasinthepoemsof LintonKwesiJohnson(borninBritainofJamaicanparentage)andMichaelSmith(seeJohnson, 1974,1975;Smith,1979). Beforethe1960s,thethinkingwasthatJamaicanCreoleinthecontextofEnglishbeingtheonly officiallanguageofthesocietyandoftheCreoleremainingoralandunstandardizedwould graduallydeclineinuseanddisappearwiththeprogressofeducationinEnglish,asthecountry developed.Thisfeelinghasproventobeverymistaken.Since1962whenthecountrybecame independentofBritain,JamaicanCreolehasbecomeidentifiedasanintegralpartofnational sentiment.Althoughitremainsunusedasaspokenorwrittenlanguageforformalpurposes(it hasnostandardspellingsystem),itsusehasactuallyincreasedwithinthesociety,forpopular oralentertainmentofallkinds,incommercialadvertising,andintheelectronicmediagenerally. However,neithertheparentsofschoolchildrennorthecountry'sMinistryofEducationhave evincedanyinterestinusingJamaicanCreoleasawrittenlanguage,eveninearlyeducation. Englishremainstheonlylanguageforallformalpurposes. JAMAICANCREOLE,MESOLECT,ANDSTANDARDENGLISH TheEnglishofnativeJamaicansischaracterizedbyadistinctiveaccentandpeculiaritiesoflexis andidiomthatjustifyitsbeingregardedasavarietyof 301

StandardEnglishthatisdifferentfromStandardBritishEnglishoranyotherstandardvariety. ThisStandardJamaicanEnglishisintelligibletospeakersofanyotherstandardvarietyandis, therefore,apartofinternationallyacceptedEnglish.ThedistinctivefeaturesofStandard JamaicanEnglishderivefromfeaturesofJamaicanCreoleinpronunciation,lexis,andidiom, whicharetransferredtotheEnglishofspeakerseducatedinJamaica.Therearenoformally publisheddescriptionsofStandardJamaicanEnglish,butitsdistinctivecharacteristics,in accordancewithwhathasalreadybeensaid,areperceivableinthosephonologicalandlexical featuresofJamaicanCreolewhichdonothavemorphologicalorsyntacticimplications.Without attemptinganyfurthercommentonStandardJamaicanEnglish,therefore,itwouldbebesttosay somethingaboutJamaicanCreole.Afterthat,becausethereisasignificantlinguisticvariation betweenwhatcanbetermedJamaicanCreoleandwhatcanbetermedStandardJamaican English,itwillbenecessarytoexaminethisvariationwhichhasbecomeknowninstudiesof CaribbeanlanguagesinceW.Stewart(1962)asmesolect. Thegrammar,lexis,andphonologyofJamaicanCreolehavebeendescribedinBailey(1966), LePageandDeCamp(1960),andCassidy(1961),andhavebeenthesubjectoffurther discussioninseveralstudiessince. AwidedifferenceexistsbetweenJamaicanCreoleandEnglishinthepronunciationevenof wordsthatarecommontobothlanguages.Theresultisamutualunintelligibility,despitethe largelycommonlexicon.Thedifferencesarebasedoncontrastivefeaturessuchasthefollowing: EnglishconsonantclusterstendtobereducedtosingleconsonantsinCreole.Thesound/h/tends tobeabsentinfluentCreoleinwordswhereitispresentinEnglish.Postvocalic/r/tendstobe absentinCreoleinwordswhereitispresentinEnglish.MidcentralandbackvowelsinEnglish tendtobeloweredinCreole.Thesearenottheonlyphonemiccontrasts,buteventhesefew,in combination,aresufficienttocreateunintelligibilitybetweenCreoleandEnglishspeakers,as maybenoticed,forexample,inthefollowingpronunciations: JamaicanCreole English /an/ hand /tanop/ stand(up) /aas/ horse /bos/ burst /kuos/ course /gyal/ girl /gwaan/ goon Purelyatthelevelofthemorphemeandword,therefore,themutualunintelligibilityofJamaican CreoleandEnglishcanbeappreciatedwhenitisrealized 302

thatitisnoteventhewholeoftheCreolelexicon,butonlyamajorityportionofitthatis commontoEnglishasillustratedabove.Thereisasubstantialsetofotherlexicalitemsthatdo notcorrespond,eithertotallyorinpart,inthetwolanguages.Forexample: JamaicanCreole English /wan/ a,an /gat/ have /ikni/ children /nyam/ eat /lik/ hit /wepaat/ where? /wentaim/ when? /juk/ prick;stick ThechangesinwordformallowedinJamaicanCreoleareveryfew,givingthelanguageavery simplemorphologycomparedwiththatofEnglish.Inparticular,therearenoinflectional changesinnouns,verbs,andpronounsasinEnglish.Theinvariablepronounforms,regardlessof caserelationships,aretheCreolepronouncedformsoftheEnglish:us,we,you,him,it,anda specialform(unu)meaningyou(plural).Therearemanydifferentmorphologicaldevices,of whichthefollowingarejustsomeexamples: 1. Thesuffixes/a/and/is/areusedtoformthecomparativeandsuperlativeofadjectives. EventheEnglishderivedsuppletiveformssuchasgood,better,andbestarenotexempt fromsuchsuffixation.Forexample:/haad,haada,haadis/,forhard,harder,hardest;butalso /gud,guda,gudis/and/gud,beta,bes(besis)/forgood,better,best. 2. Thesuffix/nis/maybeaddedtoadjectivestoformabstractnouns.Forexample:/badnis/ frombad,tomeanevilorwrongdoing;/chupidnis/fromstupid,tomeanstupidity. 3. Thedeviceofreduplicationisusedverycreativelyinordertovarythemeaningsofwords. Forexample:/waakwaak/fromwalk,tomeanwalkaboutorwalkupanddown;/piispiis/ frompiece,tomeaninseveralbits. 4. Thesuffix/i/isusedasadiminutive,sometimesincombinationwithreduplication.For example:/baitibaiti/frombite,tomeannibbledorbittenhereandthere.Thesedevicesare apartofthedailycommunicativecapacityofallCreolespeakers.Theyareusedcreatively andspontaneously,asdiscussed,forexample,inD.Craig(1982),toassistspeakerstocoin newlexicalitemsindailydiscourse.Bythismeans,theCreolespeakercompensatesforthe lexicallimitationsofCreole.ThedevicesarenotusedasfreelyasthisintheEnglish languagewheretheyalsoexist. 303

Fromwhathasbeensaid,itwillbeobviousthatallmorphologicaldevicesinJamaicanCreole aredirectedtowardlexicalcreation,andnottowardthemarkingofgrammaticalrelationships. Forthemarkingofgrammaticalrelationships,anumberofparticlesareemployed,ofwhichthe followingaresomeexamples: /dem/Pluralityanddistributivemarker.Forexample:/dibukdem/,thebooks;/Jaan dem/,Johnandhisassociates.Itmaybespeciallynotedthatthegenericplural,as wellasthegenericsingular,ofnounsistotallyunmarked.Forexample:/daagbait/, dogsbite,or'Thedog(isananimalthat)bites.Inaddition,thepluralitymarkeris notusedifthenounisprecededbyaquantifier.Forexample:/triibuk/,threebooks. /a/Continuativeaspectmarkerusedbeforeverbsandadjectives.Forexample:/ima ron/,he/sheisrunning;/dikaafiakuol/,thecoffeeisgettingcold. /en/;/di/Pastmarkerusedbeforeverbsandadjectives.Forexample:/imenron/, he/sheran. /de/Locatingmarker.Forexample:/dibukdeponditiebl/,Thebookisonthetable. /no/Negativemarker.Forexample:/nowaatanode/,Thereisnowater;/dijabno iizi/,Thejobisnoteasy. Apartfromtheuseofsuchparticles,grammaticalrelationshipsareunmarkedexceptbyword orderandarisingintonationcontourtoindicatequestionsinsentencesorquestiontags. Fromtheillustrationsgiventhusfar,itcanbeseenthatwordorderinJamaicanCreoleisthe sameasthatinEnglishdeclarativesentences,regardlessofwhethertheCreolesentenceis affirmative,negative,orinterrogative.AllwordordertypesofCreolesentences,withtwo exceptions,canthereforebefoundinEnglish,althoughwithdifferentinternalconventions relativetogrammaticalmarking. Creolehasapreferredstyleofdiscourseconsistingofveryshortsentenceswithfrequent coordinatelinkages.Forexample,Englishsentencesoftheform Hewentoutsidealthoughitwasraining. willtendtoberenderedinCreoleintheform It(was)rainingandstillhim(he)go(went)outside. AfullerdiscussionofthesediscoursecharacteristicsofCreoleisgiveninCraig(1984). OvertheyearsthatCreoleandEnglishhavebeencoexistinginJamaica,whatL.Selinker(1972) termed"aninterlanguage"hasdevelopedbetweenthetwo.Thisinterlanguagehaspreviously beenreferredtoasthemesolect.Mesolectalspeechisgenerallycharacterizedasretainingsome CreolefeatureswhilehavingmoreEnglishfeaturesthanCreolehas,andbyhavingsome interlanguagefossilizationsofitsown.

304

SomeCreolelexicalitemslike/lik/and/juk/remaininthemesolect;suchitemsmighteven continuetopersistinwhatwouldhavetoberegardedasStandardJamaicanEnglish. Thesesamemesolectalspeakers,inthesamewayasCreolespeakers,arelikelytocontinuetouse themorphologicaldevices.However,theywouldtendtopartiallyreplacetheCreoleparticlesystem (exceptforthemodalswhichtheywillretain)bytheoccasionaluseoftheappropriateEnglish inflections,tenseforms,andsoon.Thetenseforms,however,willtendtopersistasaproblem. EventhoughtheCreoletense/aspectparticlesmightnotappear,theEnglishverbinflectionstoshow tensemightnotappeareither.Moreover,theuninflectedformsofverbsmightregularlyappear withoutboththeCreolemarkersandtherequiredEnglishinflections.Finally,inmesolectal speakers,theuseofintonationandCreolediscoursecharacteristicswillpersist. TheprecedingaccountofthelinguisticformofJamaicanCreoleandmesolectprovidesabasisfor consideringthenatureoftheeducationalproblemintheteachingandlearningofEnglishwithin thisspecificcontext. LANGUAGEEDUCATION ThecontraststhatexistbetweenJamaicanCreoleandEnglishaslanguagesobviouslycreatea bilingualsituation,despitethecoreofcommonlexis.EvenifmostCreolespeakerscanshiftinto beingmesolectalspeakerswhentheoccasiondemands,themesolectitselfisonlysuperficially closertoEnglishthanCreoleis,ashasbeenshowninCraig(1978).Themuchdiscussed CreoleEnglishcontinuumthatisoccupiedbymesolectallanguagemustthereforebeconsideredasa rangeofinterlanguagephenomena,fullofvariationbutindicativeoffailureofindividualsand, diachronically,ofamajorityofthesocietytoachieveafullcommandofEnglish. AsfarastheeducationalsystemofJamaicaisconcerned,therefore,oncetheignorancethat originallyledtothedenialofCreolewasremoved,therewaslittlequestionthatapolicyofbilingual educationwasjustifiedforamajorityofchildrenthosecomingfromthelowsocioeconomic massesofthesocietywhoarehabitualCreolespeakers.Thequestionhasreallybeenaboutthemost appropriatetypeofbilingualpolicy. Theattitudestolanguageinthesociety,theaspirationsofCreolespeakingparentstohavetheir childrengrasptheopportunitieswhichEnglishaffords,themigrantcharacteristicsoftherapidly expandingJamaicanpopulationwhichhavecreatedsignificantJamaicancommunitiesinEnglish speakingcountriesoverseasandstrengthenedthealreadypervasiveinfluenceofEnglishathome allofthesefactorsdictatethat,whilesometypeofbilingualeducationalpolicyisnecessary,a policyinvolvingtheuseofCreoleasawrittenlanguageineducationwillnotbetoleratedbythe majorityofparents,evenCreolespeakingparents,inthesociety. PossiblemodelsforeducationalpoliciesinCreolespeakingcommunitieshavebeendiscussedin Craig(1980),whereitisshownthatdependingonthedetails 305

ofthesociolinguisticsituation,aCreolespeakingcommunitymayoptforoneofseveraldifferent educationalmodels.ThetypeofmodelforwhichJamaicaseemstohaveopted,quiteinformallyand withoutadeliberatedecisionatanypointintime,seemstobeoneofmonoliteratebilingualism.In thismodel,Creoleisneverusedasawrittenlanguageinschools,andEnglishistheonlywritten language. ApartfromafewintellectualswhowouldliketoseeJamaicanCreolebecomeanofficiallywritten languageinthesociety,sothattheJamaicanCreolespeakingmassesthemselves,asmightbe expected,havegiventacitacceptancetoamonoliteratebilingualinschools.Creativewritersofall kindsfindnodifficultyintransferringtheirEnglishliteracyskillstothewritingofCreolewhenthe needarises.ThereisnopressurewhatsoeverontheschoolssystemforliteracyinCreole. BecauseofthecontinuedvitalityofCreoleanditscreativeuse,withoutdoubtthecommunitywould benefitiftheorthographyearlierillustratedshouldbeadoptedforcommonusageamongwriters.In thisrespect,therecanbenoprobleminteachingsuchanorthographytopersonswhoarealready literateinEnglish,includingtraineeteachersandliteratechildreninschools.Thefactthatithasnot yetbeendonemustbeattributedtoignoranceandinertiaratherthantoanydeliberatepolicy decision,sinceitwouldnotaffectthemonoliteratebilingualgoalofinitialliteracyinEnglish. WhetherornotJamaicanCreoleisallowedtobeawrittenlanguageofeducation,thespecial problemintheJamaicansituationwouldbethatofteachingEnglishtospeakersofalexically relatedCreolelanguage.Thisisaspecialproblem,recognizedsincethe1960sasbeingdifferent fromthatofteachingEnglisheitherasanativelanguage(ENL)orasaforeignlanguage(EFL).It hassincethenbecomecharacterizedasaspecifictypeoftheproblemofteachingStandardEnglish asaseconddialect(SESD)andhasbeenextensivelydiscussedinCraig(1976,1977,and1983).The educationalaspectsofthatdiscussionwillbesummarizedhere. Tobeginwith,thefactthattheCreolespeakinglearnerofEnglishhasavocabularythatis substantiallyEnglish,andprobablyalsocanshiftintoamesolectthatsuperficiallyresembles English(atleastmorethanCreoledoes),meansthat,fromthelearner'sviewpoint,theEnglish languagecanberegardedasconsistingoffoursetsorstrataoflinguisticfeaturesasfollows.A, featurescommontobothEnglishandCreoleand,therefore,withintheproductionrepertoireofthe learner;B,featuresnotusuallyproducedintheinformalCreoleofthelearner,butknowntothe learnerandproducedunderstressinprestigesocialsituations;C,featureswhichthelearnerwould recognizeandcomprehendifusedbyotherspeakers(especiallyinameaningfulcontext),butwhich thelearnerwouldbeunabletoproduce;andD,featurestotallyunknowntothelearner.Itis sometimesconvenienttoregardfeaturesinsetsAandBasformingasingleclass,andsimilarly thoseinCandDasformingasingleclass.Even 306

whenregardedinthisway,thefoursetsshowthatintheclassoftargetlanguagealreadyknown tothelearner,thereisasetoffeaturesthatwouldbeusedonlyinunusualandveryformal situations.Intheclassoftargetlanguagenotwithintheproductionrepertoireofthelearner,there isasetoffeaturesthatcanberecognizedandcomprehended.Theimplicationsofthesesetsor strataoffeatures,asoutlinedinCraig(1976)(withreferencetononstandardspeakersgenerally), aresummarizedinthefollowing.Thespecialimplicationsofthisstratificationoflanguagevis vistheCreoleornonStandardlearnerofEnglishhasbeendiscussedinCraig(1971:378).There itisshownthat,becauseoftheBandCstrata,thelearneroftenfailstoperceivenewtargetD elementsintheteachingsituation,unlikethelearnerofaforeignlanguage.Asaresult,the reinforcementoflearningwhichderivesfromthelearner'ssatisfactionatmasteringanew elementandknowingheorshehasmastereditisminimal,unlikethataccruingtothelearnerof aforeignlanguage.BecauseoftheeaseofshiftingfromStandardEnglishtoCreoleorother nonStandardspeechandviceversa,thelearner(againunlikethelearnerofaforeignlanguage) resistsanyattempttorestricthisorheruseoflanguageexclusivelywithinthenewlanguage elementsbeingtaught.ItisthereforenotsurprisingifmanynonStandardspeakerstaughtby foreignlanguagemethodscontinuetoshowaverylowrateofacquiringStandardLanguage.T. Kochman(1969:87)feltthatthe"efficiencyquotient"ofStandardLanguageteaching,thatis,the resultthatcomesfromaninputoftimeandeffort,issonegligiblethatthewisdomofattempting toteachtheStandardunderconditionssuchasthoserelevantherehastobequestioned.The reasonsforsuchpoorresultshaveusuallybeenascribedcompletelytosocialfactorsandthe unfavorableattitudesoflearnersasin,forexample,R.Fasold(1968)andR.Abrahams(1970). Socialandattitudinalfactorsareexceedinglyimportantandobviouslyplayapart,butslowor negligibleacquisitionoftheStandardisnotrestrictedtopoorlymotivatedlearnersortolearners belowtheageofsocialawareness(seeLabov,1964:91).Thequestionthatthereforeneedstobe studiediswhethertheverynatureofbidialectalsituationsdoesnotproducestrictlylinguisticand nonattitudinalfactorsthathavesomeadditionalbearingonthepoorresultsoflanguage teaching.Theteachingprogramdictatedbythesuggestedstratificationoflanguage,visvisthe learner,andbytheconsiderationsrelatedtothatstratificationisstructuredasfollows: 1. Topicsfortreatmentinlanguageareselectedsoastoreflecttheinterests,maturity,and immediateculturalenvironmentofthelearners,butatthesametimesoastopermit adequateuseofthespecificlinguisticstructuresthatformthegoalofteachingatthe specificpointintime. 2. Thelearnersareledbytheteachertoexplorethetopicfullyinwhateverlanguagethe learnerspossess.Theteachermayeitherspeakthevernacularorspeaksomeother 307

typeof languagecloser totheStandard, orspeakthe Standarditself, aslongasthe learnersare ableto comprehend easily.The teacheraccepts whatever languagethe learnerschoose torespondin, includingsuch newlanguage asisinfiltrating intothe learners' competence. Thispartofthe programis completelyoral andmaybe designated "freetalk."The purposeofthis partisto promote normalgrowth and developmentof thelearnersin whatever language mediumis mostnaturalto them. 3 Theteacher . usesthe selectedtopic, oraspectsof thetopic,asthe basisof systematic quasiforeign language

Thedifferencebetweenwhatisoutlinedhereandstrictlyforeignlanguage teachingproceduresliesinwhathasbeentermedfreetalkandthewayinwhich controlledtalk,reading,andwritingarelinkedtoitandtooneanother.The differentpartsoftheprogramhavetobeplannedtogetherandbewell integrated.Inthisway,thelearnergetsthekindofstimulatingeducationthat oughttobepresentinafirstlanguageprogram.Atthesametime,linkedtothis stimulationandarisingoutofit,thereisaconcentrationontheorderedand sequencedteachingofnewlanguageelements.Thebuiltinresistanceofthe seconddialect 308

practice. Becauseofthe highrateof recognitionand comprehension inthe bidialectal situation, throughthe learners' possessionof thelanguage strataA,B,and C,teaching proceduresdo notusuallycall foravery intensiveuseof imitationdrills. Rather,thecall ismorefor substitutionand transformation practices, controlled dialoguesand dramas,anda heavyreliance onsimulated situationsfor forcinglearners intocreative useofthe specific linguistic structuresthat areaimedat. Thispartofthe programmay bedesignated "controlled talk,"andonly Standard Languageis used. 4 Forteachingin . (3),linguistic structuresare selectedso

that,relevantto theA,B,C,D classification ofstructures already discussed,the learnersare forcedtousea targetstructure ortarget structures selectedfromC andD(which forpractical purposesmay becombined intoasingle class).Atthe sametime,they areforcedto useincidental structuresthat come fortuitously fromAandB (which,again forpractical purposes,may alsobe combinedinto asingleclass). 5 Language . learnerswho arealso learningtoread usematerial consistingonly ofsuch linguistic structuresasat eachgiven stagetheyhave alreadylearned asat(3),and thatare relevanttothe topics discussedat (2).Language

learnerswho canalready readmayuse materialsthat are linguistically unstructured (andthemore suchlearners canbe saturatedwith reading,the better).The purposeofthis setofmeasures istoensurethat theacquisition ofandinterest inreadingare nothampered byStandard Language deficiencies, andthat readingand language learningshould reinforceeach other.Once readingis firmly acquired, however,there isnolonger anypointin linkingittothe formallearning oflanguage structure. 6 Foralllearners, . useismadein writingonlyof thoselinguistic structuresthat havealready beenlearnedas at(3),andin mostcasesthe contentofthe

writingis restrictedto topicstreated asat(2).By thismeans, writingis closelylinked toproficiency inspeech,and onereinforces theother. 7 Thevarious . subjectareasof thetotalschool curriculum enterintothe sectionof topics explainedasat (1),sothat aspectsofthese areasget reworkedin controlled speech, reading,and writinginthe samewayasall other experiences.

learnertosuchteachingiscounteredbythecarryoverofhisorherfreetalkinterestsintoother activities,bytheconstantreinforcementpassingfromoneactivitytoanother,andbythe encouragedpossibilityofnewlylearnedlanguagegraduallyinfiltratingintofreetalk,becominga partofitandbecominggraduallyaugmented.Thislastmentionedpossibilityismorethanjusta possibilitysinceithasbeenshown,asalreadydiscussed,tobetheinevitablewayinwhich languagelearningproceedsinthissituation,thatis,asagradualmixtureandreplacementof itemsalongthecontinuum.Thismixtureandreplacementoccasionedbynewlanguagelearning, asalreadyexplained,doesnotmeanthatthelearnerslosetheiroriginalvernacular.Theyretain theiroriginalvernacularforsuchoccasionsasitisneededintheirhomeandpeergroup environment.Atthesametime,theyacquireanincreasingabilitytoshifttheirformalspeechinto theStandardLanguageendofthecontinuumuntiltheyachieveanacceptableproficiencyin Standardspeech.Onthewaytowardtheachievementofsuchproficiency,manycompromisesare inevitable:somelearnersmightpersistinretainingcertainoftheiroriginalspeechcharacteristics inthemostnearlyStandardLanguagetheylearntoproduce.Othersmightachievegoodnative proficiencyinreadingandwritingtheStandardLanguagebutalsopersistintheiroriginalnon Standardspeechevenonthemostformaloccasions,andsoon.Bidialectaleducationoughtnotto expectmorethanthis.J.FishmanandE.LuedersSalmon(1972)haveshownthatGerman dialectspeakersreacttothenecessityaswellastheexperienceoflearningHighGermanin someofthecharacteristicwaysthatarenowwellknownintheUnitedStatesofAmericaandthe WestIndianlanguagesituations.Itwouldthusseemthatthefactorsdiscussedherearetobe founduniversallyinmanydifferentbidialectalsituations. Theprinciplesandproceduressketchedintheprecedingparagraphswillnotbefoundinuniform applicationinJamaicanschools,becauseoftherelativenewnessofthoseprinciplesand proceduresandalsobecausetheinfluenceoftheMinistryofEducationonthesyllabusesof schoolsisnonauthoritarianandindirect.TheMinistrymerelyissuessuggestionsandguidelines toteachers.However,indicationsofthestatedapproachwillbenoticedinMinistryofEducation syllabusesandguidelineswhere"anintegratedapproach"tolanguageteachingisdescribed. Since1978,thisapproachhasbeenembodiedespeciallyinaseriesofpupils'materialsand teachers'guidesforthefirstthreeyearsofprimaryeducation.ThesematerialsPrimary LanguageArtsarepublishedbyHeinemannEducationalBooksfortheJamaicaMinistryof Education(seeWilson,Craig,andCampbell,1978),andareissuedbytheMinistryof Education,freeofcost,toschools.Thematerialsinvolveanoralprogramof"freetalk"in Creole,andaprogramof"controlledtalk"inEnglishdesignedtoteachEnglishasasecond dialect,withparallelprogramsfortheteachingofreadingandwritinginEnglish.Thematerials envisagethat,afterthreeyears,learnerswillbeabletomoveintoaregularfourthyearprimary Childrenwhohavealreadypassedthroughtheprimaryschoolandarein 309

secondaryschools,beginningatageelevenplusshowalltheEnglishlanguagedeficienciesthat maybeexpectedfromearlieruninformedlanguageeducationapproaches.Arecentestimateof theMinistryofEducationisthat52percentofsuchchildrenleavetheprimaryschoolwithout beingabletoreadfunctionally.Therearenospecificprogramsasyetforsuchchildrenatage eleven,butastrongadultliteracyprogram(theJamaicaMovementfortheAdvancementof LiteracyJAMAL)hasbeenoperatinginthecountryformanyyearswithsomesuccess.Itserves toassistadultswhohavepassedoutoftheschoolsystemandrecognizetheneedtobeliteratein English. AnadaptationoftheEnglishteachingapproachthathasbeenoutlinedhasbeendesignedfor children,startingatthesecondaryschoollevel,whohaveacquiredreadingbutwhosecommand ofspokenandwrittenEnglishandproficiencyinlisteningandreadingcomprehensionofEnglish areinadequate.Thisadaptationinvolvesthefollowing:first,aprecisedeterminationofthe syntacticandlexicaltargets,andthecommunicationtasksthatstudentsneedtolearn;second, habitformationandcommunicativepracticesthatwillresultintherequiredlearning.Again, theseproceduresborrowfromthemethodologyofforeignlanguageteaching,buttheydiffer fromforeignlanguageteachingbecausetheyareeffectedbymeansofagradualmodificationof thelearner'salreadypossessed,formallanguagerepertoire,andencouragecreativityinthat repertoireateachstage.Theydifferfromnativelanguageteachingbecausetheyhavevery specificlinguisticelementsastargetsateachstage.Thesecondaryschoolmaterialsthatembody thestatedproceduresareCraigandWalkerGordon(1981)andCraig(1983b). Thesesecondaryschoolmaterials,orotherswiththesameaims,arenotyetwidelyusedinthose secondaryschoolsthatneedthemmost.Thereasonisthatthenonselectivesecondaryschools, whicharelargelypopulatedbytheCreoleinfluencedchildrenofthelowersocialclasses,arenot wellprovidedforwithintheeducationalsystem,although80percentofthesecondaryschoolage populationistobefoundintheseschools.Textbooksandmaterialshavenotinrecentyearsbeen issuedfreeofcosttotheseschools,andparentsonthewholecannotaffordtobuysuchbooks andmaterials.Inaddition,workingconditionsforteachersintheseschoolsareverypoor,andthe betterqualifiedteachersseekjobsinanumberofselective,highprestige,secondary"high schools"whichcaterforthe10percentofthebettereducated,lessCreoleinfluenced, secondaryagepopulationthatisselectedannuallyfortheseschoolsbymeansofanelevenplus examination.Theresultisthateducationallevelsinthenonselectivesecondaryschoolsarevery lowandwillremainsountilthegovernmentofthecountryisinapositiontoprovideforsuch schoolsonamoreamplescale.Inthemeantime,the"biloquial"natureofJamaicansociety continuestoposeasignificanteducationalproblem. BIBLIOGRAPHY AaronsB.,andW.Steward,eds.1969."LinguisticCulturalDifferencesandAmerican Education."TheFloridaFLReporter,AnthologyIssue. 310

AbrahamsR.1970.TheAdvantagesofBlackEnglish.SouthernConferenceofLanguage Learning,Florida. AlatisJ.,ed.1978.InternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation.Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversityPress. BaileyB.1964."SomeProblemsintheLanguageTeachingSituationinJamaica."InSocial DialectsandLanguageLearning,ed.R.Shuy.Champaign,Ill.:NationalCouncilofTeachersof English. .1966.JamaicanCreoleSyntax:ATransformationalApproach.London:Cambridge UniversityPress. BaratzJ.,andR.Shuy,eds.1969.TeachingBlackChildrentoRead.Washington,D.C.:Center forAppliedLinguistics. BennettL.1942.JamaicaDialectVerse.CompiledbyGeorgeR.Bowen.Kingston:HeraldLtd. .1943.JamaicaHumourinDialect.Kingston:GleanerCo. .1950.AnancyStoriesandDialectVerse.Kingston:PioneerPress. .1966.JamaicaLabrish.Kingston:SangsterandCo. BickertonD.1981.RootsofLanguage.AnnArbor,Mich.:KaromaPublicationsInc. CassidyF.1961.JamaicaTalk:ThreeHundredYearsoftheEnglishLanguageinJamaica. London:MacmillanCo. CassidyF.,andR.LePage.1967.DictionaryofJamaicanEnglish.London:Cambridge UniversityPress. CazdenC.,V.John,andD.Hymes,eds.1972.FunctionsofLanguageintheClassroom.New York:TeachersCollegePress,ColumbiaUniversity. ClarkeE.1966.MyMotherWhoFatheredMe.London:AllenandUnwin. CraigD.1971."EducationandCreoleEnglishintheWestIndies:SomeSociolinguisticFactors." InPidginizationandCreolizationofLanguage,ed.D.Hymes.NewYork:CambridgeUniversity Press. .1976."BidialectalEducation:CreoleandStandardintheWestIndies."International JournaloftheSociologyofLanguage8:93134. .1977."CreoleLanguagesandPrimaryEducation."InPidginandCreoleLinguistics,ed.A. Valdman.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. .1978."CreoleandStandard:PartialLearning,BaseGrammar,andtheMesolect."In GeorgetownUniversityRoundtableonLanguagesandLinguistics,ed.J.Alatis.Washington,

D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress. .1980."ModelsforEducationalPolicyinCreoleSpeakingCommunities."InTheoretical OrientationsinCreoleStudies,ed.A.ValdmanandA.Highfield.NewYork:AcademicPress. .1982."CompensationforLimitedLexisinCreoleEnglish."PaperpresentedintheFifth BiennialConferenceoftheSocietyforCaribbeanLinguistics,Mona,Jamaica,U.W.I. .1983a."TeachingStandardEnglishtoNonStandardSpeakers:SomeMethodological Issues."JournalofNegroEducation52,1:6574.Washington,D.C.:HowardUniversityPress. .1983b.NewWorldEnglish,Books3and4.London:LongmanGroupLtd. .1984."Communication,CreoleandConceptualization."InternationalJournalofthe SociologyofLanguage45:2139. CraigD.,andG.WalkerGordon.1981.NewWorldEnglish,Books1and2(withTeachers Guides).London:LongmanGroupLtd. DallasR.1803.TheHistoryoftheMaroons.London:StrachanforLongmanandReese. 311

EdwardsB.17931801.TheHistory,CivilandCommercial,oftheBritishColoniesintheWest Indies,Vols.I,IIandIII.Dublin:LukeWhite(1793)andLondon:JohnStockdale(1801). FasoldR.1968."Isn'tEnglishtheFirstLanguageToo?"NCTEAnnualConference,Wisconsin. FishmanJ.,andE.LuedersSalmon.1972."WhatHastheSociologyofLanguagetoSaytothe Teacher?"InFunctionsofLanguageintheClassroom,ed.C.Cazden,V.John,andD.Hymes. NewYork:TeachersCollegePress,ColumbiaUniversity. HenriquesF.1968.FamilyandColourinJamaica.London:McGibbonandRee. HymesD.,ed.1971.PidginizationandCreolizationofLanguage.NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress. JohnsonL.1974."VoicesoftheLivingandtheDead."RaceToday(March). .1975.DreadBeatandBlood.UnitedKingdom:BogleL'Ouverture. KandelL.1946.ReportoftheSecondaryEducationContinuationCommittee.Jamaica: GovernmentPrintery. KochmanT.1969."SocialFactorsintheConsiderationofTeachingStandardEnglish."In LinguisticCulturalDifferencesandAmericanEducation,ed.B.AaronsandW.Stewart.The FloridaFLReporter,AnthologyIssue. KuperA.1969.ChangingJamaica.Jamaica:KingstonPublishers. LabovW.1964."StagesintheAcquisitionofStandardEnglish."InSocialDialectsand LanguageLearning,ed.R.Shuy.Champaign,Ill.:NCTE. LePageR.1960."AnHistoricalIntroductiontoJamaicanCreole."InJamaicanCreole,ed.R. LePageandD.DeCamp.London:MacmillanCo. LePageR.,andD.DeCamp,eds.1960.JamaicanCreole.London:MacmillanCo. LongE.1774.TheHistoryofJamaica.London:Lowndes. ManleyM.1974.ThePoliticsofChange.London:AndreDeutsch. NettlefordR.1970.Mirror,Mirror:Identity,RaceandProtestinJamaica.Kingston:Collins Sangster. NorrisK.1962.Jamaica:TheSearchforanIdentity.London:OxfordUniversityPress. RiceF.,ed.1962.StudyoftheRoleofSecondLanguagesinAsia,AfricaandLatinAmerica. Washington,D.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics. SelinkerL.1972."Interlanguage."IRAL10:20931.

ShuyR.,ed.1964.SocialDialectsandLanguageLearning.Champaign,Ill.:NCTE. SmithM.1979."Threepoems:'Dread','Caanbelieveit','Roots'."InSavacou14/15,Kingston, Jamaica. StatisticalYearbookofJamaica.1981.Jamaica:DepartmentofStatistics. StewartW.1962."CreoleLanguagesintheCaribbean."InStudyoftheRoleofSecond LanguagesinAsia,AfricaandLatinAmerica,ed.F.Rice.Washington,D.C.:CenterforApplied Linguistics. .1964.NonStandardSpeechandtheTeachingofEnglish.Washington,D.C.:Centerfor AppliedLinguistics. ValdmanA.,ed.1977.PidginandCreoleLinguistics.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. ValdmanA.,andA.Highfield,eds.1980.TheoreticalOrientationsinCreoleStudies.NewYork: AcademicPress WilsonD.,D.Craig,andH.Campbell.1978.PrimaryLanguageArts.Kingston,Jamaica: HeinemannEducationalBooks(CaribbeanLtd.). 312

15 PUBLICBILINGUALEDUCATIONIN MEXICO NancyModiano ConditionsaffectingthelivesandlanguagesofMexico'sIndianshavechangeddramaticallysince thearrivaloftheSpaniards.BothhistoricalandlinguisticdatamakeitclearthatthevariousIndian groupshadconsiderablecontactwithoneanotherinpreColumbiantimes,especiallyintherealms ofeconomics,politics,andwarfare.Virtuallyallofthesecontactswerewipedoutbythe catastrophicconquestbytheSpanish.Thiswasastrueforthesmallnomadicbands,suchasthoseof BajaCalifornia,asforthehighlycomplexnationsliketheAztecandMixtec. OneoftheveryearlyrulingsoftheSpanishclergyandcivilgovernmentswastomoveallthe peopleintocompactsettlements,surroundedbyfarmlands,isolatedfromoneanother,andplacedat thedisposaloftheSpanishsettlersfortheireconomicexploitation(see,forexample,Farris,1983; Foster,1961;Gibson,1964,Roldn,1675;Sherman,1979,Taylor,1972;Wasserstrom,1983).Pre conquesttreatieswereautomaticallynullifiedandselfgovernanceabovethevillagelevel disallowed,nevertoberecreated.AllcontactwastobeSpanishIndian,withthelanguageofthe Spanishaxiomaticallyrecognizedastheonlyofficialone.Thissituationcontinued,withminor variations,untilthemiddleofthetwentiethcentury. BilingualeducationhasexistedinMexicosinceatleastthetimeoftheSpanishconquestand possiblybefore(Heath,1972;Stross,1983).However,itwaslimitedstrictlytotheeliteuntil1951, whenthefederalgovernmentinauguratedaprogramfortheotherendofthesocialspectrum,the Indians,mostofwhomcouldnotspeakthenationallanguage. WiththeestablishmentofthefirstfieldstationoftheNationalIndianInstituteinthestateof Chiapas,thefederalgovernmentin1951begantoenactpoliciesdesignedtobenefittheaboriginal population,estimatedtobeatleast10percent 313

ofthenation(Nolasco,personalcommunication).Notonlywasbilingualeducationtobea cornerstoneofitsprograms,butintimetheInstitutewouldalsosupportthereunificationofthe Indiansintoasinglepoliticalpressuregroup(NahmadSittn,personalcommunication).Although theNationalCouncilofIndianPeoples(ConsejoNacionaldePueblosIndigenas)doesnotyetseem towieldmuchpoliticalclout,atthenationallevelithasmanagedtomaintaincriticalindependence ofitsfoundersandhasreceivedconsiderablepresscoverageforthepresentationofitsclients'needs andviews. THEINDIANPOPULATIONTODAY TodayMexicoisababeloftongues,justasithasbeenthroughoutitshistory.Howmanylanguages arespokenisamatterofdebate;withinthepasttwodecades,linguistshavecountedanywherefrom twentytwotoninetyone(AranadeSwadeshetal.,1975;Kaufman,1974),whilerepresentativesof thefederalgovernmentspeakintermsoffiftysix(NahmadSittn,1982).Thecountvariesso muchbecausesomeauthorsincludewithinagivenlanguagewhatothersconsidertobeseveral languages(asinthecasesofMixtecandZapotec);inotherscasesthereverseoccurs,withwhat someconsidertobeonelanguagelistedasseveral(aswithmostofthelanguagesofBaja California).Currently,anestimatedonehundredidioms(languagesandtheirmajormutually unintelligibledialects)arebeingspoken. Linguistsgenerallyagreethattherearethreemajorlanguagefamiliesamongtheaboriginaltongues: UtoNahua,foundprimarilyinthenorthernandcentralpartsofMexico;OtoMangueinthecenter; andMayan,inthecentralandsouthernregions.However,therelationshipofanumberofidiomsnot onlytoeachotherbutalsotothesefamiliesisstillbeingdebated.Forexample,inadditiontothe threemajorfamilies,T.Kaufman(1974)listsfiveisolatedlanguagesandonegroupingofthree (MixePopolucaZoque).Ontheotherhand,M.SwadeshandE.Arana(1975)admitonlyoneof Kaufman'sisolates(Kikapu)andplacealltheotherswithintheMayanfamily. Withthenumberoflanguagesunclearandwiththedefiningcharacteristicof"Indian"basedon languageusage,thesizeoftheIndianpopulationisatleastequallydifficulttodeterminewithany precision.Moreover,asinthecaseofsomanycountries,theMexicancensusisgenerally consideredtoberatherinaccurate,especiallyinthecountingofnonmainstreamgroups.Bothin practiceandinofficialrhetoric,MexicanculturecombinesitsIndianandSpanishantecedents,both culturalandgenetic.Sincetheattributionof"Indian"asdistinctfrom"mestizo"(mixedblood) cannotbegeneticallydetermined,amixtureofculturalmarkershavebeenusedinthepastto determinewhowillbecountedasIndianinthecensusandwhoasmestizo.Languageusagehas alwaysbeenincludedamongthesemarkersandhasproventobethemostrobustovertime.The 1980censusenumeratesthosewho"speaksomeIndianlanguage",whichisdefinedas"thenameby whichthedifferentlanguagesspokenbytheIndian 314

groupswhoseancestorsdatebacktotheprecolonialepoch,areidentified"(Secretarade ProgramacinyPresupuesto,1983:206,247). Accordingtothe1980census,6.4percentofthenationalpopulationovertheageoffivefitthis description.ButwithmanyIndians"invisible"tothecensustakers,theactualnumbersareprobably muchhigher.ThenumbersproposedbytheOfficeofIndianEducationoftheSecretariatofPublic Education,basedinpartonthe1970census,arehigherthanthoseofthe1980count,althoughstill inaccurate.Storiesofparentshidingtheirchildrenfromtheenumeratorsarestillquitefrequent.In oneChiapascommunity,municipalauthoritieslisted38,000headsoffamiliesin1977forpurposes ofinternaltaxation,butthe1980censuslistsatotalpopulationofonlyabout32,500(Mendez Gomes,personalcommunication;seeTable15.1). Indiansarefoundlivingineverystateofthenationandinsizablegroupsintwentyoneofthe thirtyone(RuzVelascoandBonillaCastillo,1982),fromnorthwesternBajaCaliforniatothe YucatanPeninsula.Theyaretobefoundineachofthemajorecologicalnichesdesert,tropical highlands,andhumidlowlands.ThereisalsoalargeIndianpopulationintheenvironsofMexico City,composedprimarilyofdescendantsoftheNahuaswholivedthereatthetimeoftheconquest. Becauseofthegreatdiversityoflanguages,habitats,andworldviews,relativelylittlecanbesaidto characterizetheIndianpopulationasawhole,exceptthatitisoverwhelminglyruralandpoverty stricken.Thepovertyisduelargelytotheeconomicexploitationthathasbeenitsloteversincethe arrivaloftheSpanish.Anothercommonalityisthat,althoughthevariousculturesdocontainmore aboriginallyderivedtraitsthanthemajorityone,theyalsoincludemyriadsofelementsderivedfrom theSpanish,principallyintherealmsoftechnology,religion,anddress. Inadditiontolanguageusage,theprincipalcriteriafordifferentiatingthevariousgroupsfromone anotheratthelocallevel,aswellasfromthemajorityculture,aresomeoftheseverysameSpanish influencedtraits,asadaptedandmodifiedovertime.Afterlanguage,uniquenessindressisoneof themajoridentifyingcriteriainmanyregions.Uniquereligiouspracticesarealsofoundinmost groups,themostnotablecenteringontheagriculturalcycle,especiallyrainfall,sowing,andthe harvest.Beyonddistinctivedress,manygroupscontinuetomanufacturecraftitemsfortheirown useandsometimesforsaletooutsiders.Oftentheselocallymadeitemsareusedbecause commerciallymanufacturedsubstitutesaretoocostly,buttherearealsothosewhotakepridein theirartsandstrivetomaintainthem.Itisespeciallythesecraftsandthedistinctivedressofmany groupsthatgiveMexicomuchofitsuniquecolor,whichcanbeseenintourismadvertisementssuch aspostersofthe"FlyingDancers"(Voladores)ofPapantla,aMayanwomanstandingnexttoan ancientruin,orparticipantsinthedancefestivalsofOaxaca. IndiscussingdifferencesbetweenIndiansandmestizos,EricWolff(1959)hascenteredmoreon worldview,takingashisprimarydistinguishingcriterion 315

Table15.1SpeakersofIndianLanguages(estimatedfor1980) Language Nahua Maya Zapotec Mixtec Otomi Totonac Mazahua Mazatec Tzeltal Tzotzil Chol Huastec Purepecha Mixe Chinantec Chontal (Tabasco) Tlapanec Mayo Popoloca Zoque Tarahumara Drique Chuj: Ixcatec: Jacaltec: Kikapu: Kiliwa: Kumiai: Lacandon: Mame: Matlazinca: Motozintlec: Ocuiltec: Sources: #ofSpeakersLanguage #ofSpeakers 1,007,430 Amuzgo 17,496 573,001 Tojolobal 16,765 357,083 Chatino 14,837 293,933 Cuicatec 12,844 278,592 Huave 9,379 157,329 Yaqui 8,928 131,984 Huichol 8,663 127,966 Popoluca 8,178 125,283 Cora 7,866 120,206 Tepehuan 7,079 92,917 Tepehua 6,988 83,291 Pame 4,605 76,133 Pima 3,838 68,561 Chocho 3,838 68,261 Guarijio 3,838 Chontal 59,522 2,419 (Oaxaca) 38,821 Chichimec 1,535 35,095 Papago 921 35,057 PaiPai 569 34,203 Cucapa 307 32,110 Seri 228 23,565 Cochimi 115 OtherLanguages currentlyspokenonlybyGuatemalanmigrants countedinMazatec currentlyspokenonlybyGuatemalanmigrants currentlyspokenonlybyOklahomanmigrants similartootherBajaCalifornianlanguages similartootherBajaCalifornianlanguages countedinMaya spokenprimarilybyGuatemalanmigrants virtuallynolivingspeakers virtuallynolivingspeakers virtuallynolivingspeakers RuzVelascoandBonillaCastillo(1983) MxicoIndigena(May,1977) PersonalCommunications

316

thefactthatwhilethemestizosseethemselvesasapartofanation,perhapsevenofaworld population,theIndians'chiefinterestsaretheirlocalcommunity,whichtothemrepresentsthe "centeroftheuniverse."Thisistrueevenforthosewhohavetomigrategreatdistancesinorderto earnaliving.Towhatextentthisisduetoacarryoverfromcolonialtimes,tomorerecentisolation, orasameansofegodefenseagainstthemistreatmentsocommonlyreceivedfromoutsidershas neverbeendetermined,althoughallofthesefactorsdoinfluenceculturalconservationorchange. Duringthecolonialperiod,peoplewereclassifiedsociallyaccordingtotheirgeneticand geographicalantecedents;someoftheseclassificationsweregivenofficialrecognitionin documentssuchastaxlistsandcensuses.AmongthetermsmostcommonlyusedwereIndian, Spaniard,White(Blanco,whichincludedthechildrenofSpaniardsbornintheAmericas),Black (Negro),Mulatto,Servant(Naborio),andMestizo.Intime,thislasttermcametoabsorballthe othersexceptthefirst.Duringthecolonialperiod,officiallysanctionedanddifferingdemandsand standardsofbehaviorwereexpectedofeachsocialgroup(Roldn,1675). AftertheWarofIndependenceof1810,Indiansassuchwerenolongeraffordeddistinctive treatmentintheeyesofthelaw,butweretobetreatedlikeallothercitizens.Giventhedifferences intheirhistoryandespeciallyinthenatureoftheirlandholdings,whichwerecommunal,manyof thenewlawsworkedtotheirdetriment.Thisbecamepainfullyobviousduringthepresidential regimeofBenitoJuarez,himselfanIndian,whopushedforthe"legalization"ofalllandholdings,a difficultandexpensivepropositionformostIndiancommunities.Asaresult,manygroupslost muchoftheirancestrallandstohacendados(haciendaowners)wholaterrecruitedthemandtheir descendantsintopeonage.DuringthelengthypresidencyofPorfirioDiaz(18761911),theIndians' economicbasebecameevermoreprecariousandmanygroupsthathadsurviveduntilthenvirtually disappearedastheywereabsorbedintoamestizoizedsemislaveclass,theirmembersboundbythe debtsincurredbypreviousgenerations. AftertheRevolutionof1910,definiteattemptsweremadetoeasetheplightofthepeasantry,but policieswerealwayswordedingeneralterms,withnodifferentiationsmadebetweenmestizosand Indians.OnlythenationalmestizocultureanditsSpanishlanguagewererecognized.Notonlydid thisapplytolaborlawsbuttoalllegislationaswell,includingthatconcerningschooling. Atthistimeanewmodelforruralschoolingwasdeveloped,inwhichtheteacherwasseenasa missionary,bringingthelightofallthatwasneworbetterintheworldtothepeasantry.These missionaryteachersdidaccomplishmanycommunitydevelopmentprojectsinthevillages, introducing,amongotherthings,healthservices,sanitation,andimprovedcommunications.Some ofthemarestillrecalledwithgreatwarmthandappreciationinmestizocommunities.Butwhen theseteachersfoundthemselvesinIndianvillages,thesituationwas 317

different,fortheycouldbarelycommunicatewiththeadultsandevenlesswiththechildren. Duringthe1930s,afewpilotprojectswereundertakenusingthelocalIndianlanguageasamedium ofinstructionandliteracy.TheOtomiandTarascanprojects,bothlocatedinthecentralpartofthe country,weretobearunexpectedfruitsometwentyyearslater. Duringthe1930s.thefederalgovernmentalsobegantorecognizethespeciallegalneedsofthe Indians.AcorpsofidealisticlawyerswasorganizedintotheOfficeofIndianAffairs(Asuntos Indgenas),butitwasnottofarewellovertime.Shortlyafteritsinceptionin1936,itwas recognizedforthefirstofmanytimes,alwayswithdiminishedscopeandpower,untilitwas completelyabsorbedintotheOfficeofIndianEducationuponthefoundingofthatofficein1978 (GonzlesG.,1982). In1940,anInterAmericanConferencewasheldinPatzcuaro,intheheartoftheTarascanregion.It wasattendedprimarilybyanthropologistsandothernonIndianprofessionals.Oneofthe concludingstatementsoftheconferencewasaverystronglywordedrecommendationtotheeffect thatallthecountriesthatdidnotyethaveoneimmediatelyorganizeafederalofficetodealwithall aspectsoflifeinwhichIndianshadreceivedunfairtreatment.InMexico,thisrecommendationwas notcarriedoutuntil1948,atwhichtimetheNationalIndianInstitutewascreated.In1951,itsfirst fieldcenterbeganoperationsinChiapas,staffedbysomeoftheverysamepeoplewhohad participatedintheOtomiandTarascanprojectsadecadeearlier.Bilingualeducation,witliteracy firsttaughtinthemothertongue,wasamajorcornerstoneoftheprogram. Overtheyears,theInstituteexpandedthescopeofitsoperations,graduallycomingtocoverallbut themostnumericallyinsignificantofIndianenclavesinthecountry.Duringthe1970sseveral attemptsweremadetogivelegalvaliditytotheIndianlanguages.Forexample,theSecretariatof PublicEducation,aspartofitsofficialpolicy,statedin1973thatoneofitsgoalswastocreatea commonlanguageforallMexicansbut"withoutgivinglessprestigetotheuseoftheaboriginal languages."Atthesametime,itofficiallyapprovedbilingualeducationasameansofsupporting boththenationalandlocallanguagesandofmeetingsomeofitsothereducationalgoals(Diario OfficialdelaFederacion[September11],1978:16). WhatdoesthefutureholdfortheIndianpopulation?Abestscenescenariowouldputanend economicexploitation.Everyfamilyandverycommunitywouldhavethewherewithaltoamply meetallofitsneeds.Youngsterswouldbeabletoelectwhethertoremaininthecommunityorto preparefornonruralcareerswithoutevertakingintoconsiderationeconomicremuneration. Moreover,eachgroupwouldbeabletofreelydecidewhethertofurtherdevelopitsownculture, adoptthemajorityone,oracceptandimproveonelementsofboth. Aworstscenescenariowouldbeginwithanintensificationofthecurrenteconomicscrisis, bringingwithitstarvationandwidespreadillness.Inmanywayshistorywouldrepeatitself,with thepeoplesellingthemselvesintodebtpeonage 318

again,dispersing,findingthemselvesimmersedinthenationalculture,anddenigratingor denyingtheirIndianheritage.Inacoupleofgenerations,thevastlydiminishedIndiancultures wouldlargelydisappear.Amorerealisticscenariowouldfollowmorealongthelinesofrecent history,withopposingtendenciestowardsatisfyingbasiceconomicneeds(generallyfaraway fromthehomecommunity)andtowardthefurtherdevelopmentofafewculturaltraits.Intime, thenationalculturewouldcometodominate;amongothereffects,manycraftswouldgiveway tocheapercommercialalternatives.Housing,health,diet,andcommunicationswouldimprove somewhat,bothwithinthehomecommunitiesandintheareastowhichthesurpluspopulation wouldmove.(Untilrecently,theannualgrowthratewas3.5percent,nationally,withtheIndians notfarbehind,trulyademographicexplosion.)Crafts,costumes,beliefs,andcustomswill largelywendtheirwayintomuseumsandlibraries,butnotattheexpenseofthepeople'swell being. THEPROGRAMOFBILINGUALEDUCATION TheprogramofformaleducationforIndianchildrencurrentlyineffectunderthepolicy indicatedaboveishousedintheOfficeofIndianEducation(DireccionGeneraldeEducacion Indgena)oftheSecretariatofPublicEducation.AlltheOffice'spersonnel,withtheexceptionof afewsocialscientists,areconsideredtobeIndians,fromtheDirectortothenewestrecruitsfor classroomteachers.Assuch,allareexpectedtospeakatleastoneIndianlanguageaswellas Spanish;asizablebutundeterminedproportionofthepersonnelarefluentinmorethanone Indianlanguage.ThemajorconcernoftheOfficeistoprovidebilingualandbiculturalinstruction ofacaliberequaltoorbetterthanthatformestizos,ingradeskindergartenthroughsix,for Indianchildrenthroughoutthenation.Atpresent,seventeenthousandteachersandnearlyhalfa millionchildrenareinvolvedinthesystem.Theselatterrepresentaboutaquarterofthetotal Indianschoolagedpopulation(RuzVelascoandBonillaCastillo,1983:180).Primaryschooling isnotuniversalforIndianchildren,norformestizoslivingveryfarfromsettledcommunities. AlthoughtheSecretariatgenerallydoesclaimthatprimaryschoolingisnowvirtuallyuniversal fornonexceptionalchildren,occasionalspokespersonsdisputethis,sometimesstatingthatas manyas3millionarenotyetprovidedfor.Enrollmentsvaryfromonecommunitytoanother, fromverycloseto100percent,asinOxchuc,Chiapas,tolessthan50percentinChamula,also inthestateofChiapas.Stepstakentoimplementofficialpolicyincludethefollowing: 1. Theestablishmentofoverfourthousandkindergartencenterswithatotalenrollmentof aboutonehundredandfiftythousandchildren,agedfivetoseven,attendedbynearlysix thousandteachers.Thesearelocatedinbothbilingualandnonbilingualschools.The kindergartenprogram,designedprimarilybyIndianteachers,doesnotdiffermarkedly 319

fromother SincethebooksforIndianlanguageinstructionhavebeendistributedinonlya programsfor minorityofschoolsandthenonlytofirstgraders,theoverwhelmingmajorityof thisagegroup, thechildrenfindthemselvesusingSpanishlanguagetextbooks.Therefore,the especiallyas bilingualaspectoftheprogram,asitisappliedinmostclassrooms,consistsof theyare thetranslationofthecontentofthebooksbytheteachersandresponsesinthe conceivedin Indianlanguagebythechildren,untilsuchtimeastheycanhandlethematerial Mexico.The directlyinSpanish.Withlittleornoinstructioninthenationaltongueasa children's secondlanguageandfewSpanishspeakersamongthestudents,thelanguageis tongueisthe learnedveryslowlyandimperfectly;thesameistruefortheacademiccontent. onlymedium Almostallthestudentsrepeatagradeatleastoncebutmorecommonlytwice. ofinstruction, Thedropoutrateiscorrespondinglyhigh,especiallyafterthechildrenareold withSpanish enoughtomakeaviablecontributiontothefamilyeconomy.Onlyoneofevery introducedat 320 theendofthe schoolyearvia somesongs andcommon greetings. Teachingis ratherformal, butthe children generally appeartofeel freetoexpress theirneeds andinterests. Theteachers are encouragedto usethe physical surroundings oftheschool asmuchas possible.The kindergarten teachersare theonlyones tobesupplied witha modicumof curriculum materialsother than textbooks. 2 The . preparationof

someseventy threereading primersand teacher's manualsinas manyidioms. Ofthese, twentysix havebeen printedand distributedat leastonce, thirtyoneare beingprepared forprinting, andtherest areinrevision andawaiting theevaluation ofthebooks currentlyin printbefore being processed.All ofthesebooks werewritten byIndian teachersunder theguidance ofcurriculum specialistsand linguists. 3 Theselection . and preparationof aprogramfor oralSpanish asasecond language,with ateacher's manualand student's picturebook designedto serveasthe basisfor pattern practice. 4 The

. preparationof ateacher's manualand children's workbookfor theotherareas ofthefirst grade academic program.In ordertosave costs,one largeedition hasbeen prepared ratherthan myriadsmaller ones.The children's booksconsist solelyof illustrations, numbers,and the mathematical symbols commonly usedatthis level.The teacher'sbook iswrittenin Spanishand includes detailed instructions foreachofthe lessons suggested,as wellastheuse ofeachofthe pagesinthe children's book. Although writteninthe national language,itis expectedthat theteachers

willtranslate anduseonly thelocal Indian languagewith theirstudents. Inorderto helpthem with terminology newtothe language,a listingofall mathematical termstobe usedwas includedwith their translationsin theprimer manual,the onlyone specifictothe local language.So farnoterm hasdefied translation, although some,suchas "numberline" and "quadrangle" didpresent some difficultyto thetranslators; "zero"was easierto handle,always being translatedas "nothing, 5 Theoverall . goalsofthe sixyear primary programare essentiallythe

sameasthose ofthenational programand notmarkedly differentfrom thoseofother countries.Itis uniqueonlyin thatthe childrenare expectedto become thoroughly bilingualby theendofthe sixthgrade,in both conversational andacademic Spanish,a language rarelyheardin their communities.

hundredbeginningfirstgradersislikelytosuccessfullycompletethesixyearcourseofstudies (RuzVelascoandBonillaCastillo,1983:9697). Wherethebilingualprogramhasbeenputintoeffectinthefirstgradethepicturevariessomewhat. Itismucheasierforthechildrentolearntheacademicmaterial,leadingtolowerratesofretention anddesertion.(Asofthiswritingtherewerenostatisticsavailable.)TheOfficeofIndianEducation plannedtoevaluatetheexistingmaterialsduringthe198485schoolyear,tobefollowedby whatevermodificationswereindicatedandthenbythemassiveproductionofallthenecessary materialsforatleastthefirstgrade.Finally,materialsfortheothergradeswillbedeveloped,oneat atime.Sincetheseplanscouldnotbeaccomplishedwithinonepresidentialregime(inacountry whereeverynewpresidencyimpliesmajorpolicyshiftsandmassivepersonnelchanges),themost thatwasanticipatedfortheforeseeablefuturewasthepreparationofanintegratedsecondgrade program,aswellaslanguageartsmaterialsforgradesthreethroughsixinbothlanguages. PROBLEMSANDATTEMPTEDSOLUTIONS ThemajorproblemfacingIndianeducationisthelackoffundstoaccomplishwhatisneeded, especiallyinregardtotheproductionofcurriculummaterials.Sincethisfundingdependsonthe economichealthofthenation,whichisnowveryprecarious,thisproblemmaynotbesolvedfor manyyears.Meanwhile,theschools,teachers,andstudentscontinuetomuddlealongasbestthey can. Teachermoraleisanotherareaofseriousconcern.Theteachersarecaughtbetweentwoworlds.One isthatoftheirnatalcommunities,whichgenerallystresscooperationwithinsmallboundedgroups, publicservice,andlimitedadultrolesandbehaviorpatterns.Theother,towhichtheyhavebeen exposedsinceatleastthebeginningofsecondaryschool,haspressuredthemtodenigratetheir peopleandjointhemajorityculture.Onthejobthispressurecontinues,especiallyintheircontacts withmestizoteachersandunionorganizers.MostoftheIndianteacherstendtoleantowardthe nationalculture,althoughalmostallexpressconsiderableambivalenceabouttheirethnicidentity. TheresponseoftheOfficeofIndianEducationhasbeentostresspanIndianvaluesinall encountersbetweentheMexicoCityleadershipandthepeopleinthefield,whilerecognizingthat moremustbedonetoimprovemorale. Theacademicprogramispoorlyrelatedtotheneedsofthecommunitiesandisnotverysuccessful inpreparingthechildrenforsecondaryandhighereducation.Lessthanhalfofthefewwho graduatefromelementaryschoolcontinuetheireducation(RuzVelascoandBonillaCastillo, 1983:9697).ThissituationhasbeenstressedoverandoveragainbytheNationalCouncilofIndian PeoplesandtheProfessionalAssociationofIndianProfessors(AMPIBAC),ateachers'organization. Ateachoftheirnationalconferences,bothagencieshavecalledfor"educationdesignedbyIndians fortheirdevelopment,fortheirethniciden 321

tification,fortheirculturalrenewalandparticipationin(national)politics"(AMPIBAC,1981:6). TheOfficeofIndianEducationistryingtodevelopandimplementaprogramtosatisfythese demands.Theteachers,however,arepoorlypreparedtocarryoutsuchajob.In1951,thefirst teacherswerechosenfromamongthemostbilingualandliterateofcommunityleaders;none couldboastevenasixthgradeeducation.Sincethen,asthenumberofpotentialteachershas outstrippedthenumberofavailablejobs,academicrequirementshaverisen.Atpresent,they includeaminimumofsecondaryschooling(ninthgrade)inmostregions;nationally,the elementarycertificateistheabsoluteminimum.Butleadershipqualitieshavebeengivenlessand lessemphasis. Preservicetraininghasbeenaccomplishedthroughspecialcourses,whichhavevariedfromtwo weekstooneyearinlength.Duringrecentyears,inservicetraininghasincludedshortcourses forallpersonnelandspecialnormalschooltrainingforthoselackingprofessionalcertification. (Thefederalgovernmenthasjustdecreedthathenceforthallnewteacherswillrequirethe equivalentoftheU.S.B.S.degree,butthisdoesnotaffectpersonscurrentlyenrolledinnormal schools.)Today,slightlyoverhalfoftheIndianteachershaveearnedtheirprofessional certificate,whileonlyabout5percenthavenotyetgonebeyondprimaryschool(RuzVelasco andBonillaCastillo,1983:25). Thestudents,too,havetheirproblems.Theprincipalone,asindicatedabove,isthecompetition fortheirparticipationintheeconomicactivitiesofthefamily.Oneoftheolderteacherstellsof hisfather'sprofuseapologiesforlettinghimwastehistimegoingtoschoolratherthanteaching himwhatwasimportant:farming(SantisGomez,personalcommunication).Anothertellsof howshebeggedamantoleavehissoninschoolinsteadoftakinghimofftoacoffeeplantation. Repliedthefather,"Thenhowwillheeat?"(AriasPerez,personalcommunication).Inthecase ofgirls,thepictureisoftenfurthercomplicatedbecausetherearerelativelyfewfemaleteachers andschoolsareseenastheprovinceofmen.Accordingtothestandardsofmostcommunities, thegirlsarenotsufficientlyprotected,especiallyastheygrowtowardpubescenceand marriageability. Anotherproblemformanystudentsisthelongdistancesbetweenhomeandschool;itisnotatall unusualforthemtowalktwohoursineachdirection.Forthosewholiveveryfaraway,thereis oftentheopportunityofattendingaparttimeboardingfacility(albergue),returninghomeon weekendsandvacations,orafulltimeboardingschool(CentrodeIntegracinSocial),but these,too,havetheirdrawbacks.Theprincipalone,thesedays,isthatthefoodbudgets,never fullyadequate,havebeenravagedbyinflation.Despitefrequentadjustments,thechildrenoften gohungry,andanutritionallyadequatedietisbeyondthereachofeventhemostingeniousmeal planner.Inaddition,atthehigher(colder)altitudes,theremaynotbeenoughblanketstogive eachchildmorethanone.Insomeareasthewatersupplyisinsufficientorsporadic;medicalcare isoftennotreadilyavailable.Onlythemostdedicatedofstudentsseemto 322

usetheseboardingfacilitieswithenthusiasm.Manyofthemfigureamongthefewwhocontinue theirschoolingbeyondthesixthgrade. Perhapsthegreatestproblemfacedbythechildrenistheclashinvaluesandbehaviorpatterns betweenthosetheylearnathomeandthoserewardedbytheschools.Althoughtheseclashesare considerablylessenedintheschoolswithIndianteachers,theystillexist,pullingthechildren betweentheirhomesandtheoutsideworld. TheOfficeofIndianEducationisfullycognizantofalltheseproblemsandistryingtoresolvethem asbestitcanwithinsufficientfundingandadearthofprofessionalspecialistswhoareasfamiliar withIndiancommunitiesaswiththeirareasofexpertise.Untilnowthesespecialists,bethey curriculumdevelopers,linguists,psychologists,anthropologists,orsociologists,haveshownthat whentheycannotworkwithintheconditionsandculturalsettingsoflifeintheIndiancommunities orwhentheircontributionsremaincouchedintheworldviewoftheirownculture,theresultsof theireffortsarevirtuallynil.Untilrecently,fewoutsidershavebeenwillingorabletocomprehend theintimaciesofIndianlife,and,todate,therehavebeennoIndianswithsufficientacademic training.TheOfficeofIndianEducationthereforedecidedthatthemoreefficientroutewouldbeto trainIndianteachersandthenhavethemtranslatetheirprofessionalpreparationtotheculturalworld oftheirpeople.Itwouldalsobemuchfairerforthemtohavemoreopportunitiestoadvance professionallythantohavemore"experts"foistedonthem.Therefore,twoprogramshavebeen developedforadvancedteachertraining.Inone,agroupofteachersisstudyingcurriculum developmentattheNationalPedagogicalUniversity;theyarenowintheirsecondyearofclasses.In theother,theareaofconcentrationisculturallinguistics;thesecondgroupisnowgoingthrough thistwoyearprogram. AnotherthrustoftheOfficeofIndianEducationhasbeentoattempttodevelopitsownsixyear courseofstudyfortheelementaryschool,onethatwouldbettermeettheneedsofthecommunities whilenotdenyingadequateacademicpreparationtothosewishingtocontinueformaleducation beyondthislevel.Thisproject,likesomanyothers,ishamperedbythelackofadequatelytrained Indianpersonnel,butevenmorebythelackoffundsforpilottestingitsproposals. Anothermajorgoal,asindicatedabove,hasbeentoraisetheawarenessoftheteachers,reinforcing thepositiveelementsoftheirnatalculturesasameansofbuildingprideintheircultural inheritance,whichtheyoftenequatewithpovertyanddeprivation.Thishasbeenanuphilland continuingbattle.Thehopeisthatonceatrulybilingualprogramisinplacetheteacherswillseefor themselvestheadvantagesofthisapproachandcometoreaffirmtheirethnicbackgrounds. Inrelationtotheproblemsfacedbythestudents,inadditiontotheattemptstoimprovethe curriculumandtheconstantstrugglestoincreasethebudgetsoftheboardingfacilities,moreand morewomenarebeinggiventeachingpositions.Thishelpstofeminizetheschoolstothedegree thatgirlscannowfeelcomfortablethereandtheirparentslessanxious.However,sinceonlya handfulofschools 323

havemorethanoneclasspergradeandtheteachersgenerallyfindhandlingmorethanonegroup inaclassroomoverlydifficult,thelogicalstepoforganizingsexsegregatedclassesisalmost impossibletotake. Alleducationalauthoritiesagreethatotherthanmakingschoolingcompulsorybyforce(it alreadyis,legally,throughthesixthgradeortheageoffourteen),thecompetitionwithchild laborwillbewononlyifandwhenparentsandchildrenalikeseeinschoolingamoreviable solutiontotheireconomicproblems.Thatmomentstillliesinthefuture. RESEARCHSTUDIES Thequantityandqualityofeducationalresearchhaveimprovedmarkedlyinthepastfewyears (Modiano,1984).Basicstudies,especiallythoserelatedtotheIndianlanguages,prevail.The majorityofthosepublishedduringthepastdecadehaveemanatedfromtheSummerInstituteof Linguistics,withthevarioussectorsoftheSecretariatofPublicEducation(includingmuseums, theNationalSchoolofAnthropology,andvariousresearchinstitutes)insecondplace. Combined,theseworksincludeatotalofninebilingualdictionaries(inSpanishandCh'ol, Huave,Mixtec,Nahua,Otomi,Popoloca,Popoluca,Tepehuan,Tojolobal,Trique,Tzotzilor Zoque)andanumberofdetailedgrammaticaldescriptions. Severalevaluationswerealsoconducted,especiallyintheareaoflanguageusageinandoutof theschoolhouse.Allshowedtheambivalenceoftheteacherstowardtheirownethnicgroup,to thedetrimentofthechildren'swellbeingoracademicachievement(ChavezBernal,1982; Lpez,1982;RosRomero,1981).Amoretraditionalevaluation,ofaprogramdesignedtoteach oralSpanishtokindergartenchildreninoneyear,demonstratedthatnoneoftheeducational objectiveswerereached(Modiano,1984).Basedontheseresults,theOfficeofIndianEducation introducedtheIndianlanguagekindergartenprogramasrapidlyasitcould.Asubsequent evaluationshowedthatwithalltheinstructioninalanguagethechildrenunderstoodandSpanish relegatedtosomeintroductorylessonsattheendoftheschoolyear,alltheeducationalgoals wereachieved(TovarandCabrera,1982). Anotherinvestigation,moretraditionalindesign,examinedkindergarteners'perceptionof colored(asopposedtoblackandwhite)illustrations(Modianoetal.,1982).Mostoftheitems, takenfromthenationalfirstandsecondgradetextbooks,werecorrectlyinterpreted,butthose thatimpliedmovementinspace(suchasaflickeringfire)weremisinterpretedbymostofthe subjectsregardlessofthemediumofpresentation(drawingsorphotographs). Actionresearch,incidentaltothepreparationofcurriculummaterials,wasanotherfruitful approach,althoughonlyonedescriptivestudyresulted(Modiano,1982).Indianteachers,in consultationwithcurriculumspecialistsandlinguists,preparedatotalofseventythreereading primersforasmanydialectsoftwentysixlanguages.Anotherthirtyone,coveringasmany variantsofsixlanguages, 324

areunderdevelopment,asareaboutadozentitlesofsupplementaryreadingmaterialsinvery eleganteditions.TheSummerInstituteofLinguistics,usingprimarilyforeignlinguistswithnative informants,publishedsixtyfourprimersfortwentylanguagesand250supplementaryreading pamphletsbynativeauthors,generallyinverylimitedtrialeditions.Severalteachinggrammars werealsopreparedbytheSecretariatandtheInstitutealike;sixofthesehavebeenpublishedsofar. WhiletheSecretariat'smaterialsaregenerallydesignedforclassroomuse,thoseoftheSummer InstituteareconfinedlargelytoadulteducationinProtestantchurchrelatedgroups. Amajorproblemincarryingoutresearchatthistimeisthelackofadequatefunding.Withthe nationinasevereeconomiccrisis,moniesforeducationalresearch,allofwhichcomesfromthe federalbudget,haveallbutdisappeared.Nonetheless,somestudies,especiallyevaluations,are beingconducted.OnenotableaspectofeducationalresearchinMexico,especiallyinIndian education,isthealacritywithwhichresultsareappliedtoplanningandprograms,eventhoughnot allofthesechangeshaveyetreachedtheschoolhouselevel. SOURCESOFINFORMATION ThereisnoonecentralplaceeitherinMexicoorelsewherewhereadditionaldataontheprograms ofpublicbilingualeducationarestored.Moreover,somematerials,includingmanyreferredto above,arenotgenerallyavailable,beingeitheroutofprintorhavingneverbeengivengeneral circulation.Themostfruitfulplacestobeginanexhaustivesearchofmaterialsrelatedtothese programsareinthelibrariesoftheNationalIndianInstitute(AvenidaRevolucin1279,ColoniaLos Alpes,01010Mexico,D.F.)andtheOfficeofIndianEducation(Azafran4864Piso,Colonia GranjasMexico,08400Mexico,D.F.). SUMMARY ThehistoryofMexico'sIndianpopulationisoneofexploitationandpoverty.Theirlanguages numberanywherefromabouttwentytoonehundreddependingonwhodoesthecountingandhow. EducationalpolicieshavetakentheuniquecircumstancesandneedsoftheIndiansintoaccountonly duringthepastthirtyfouryears.Themajorsectionofthischapterdescribestheofficialprogramfor bilingualandbiculturalIndianeducationforgradesK6.Theprogramhasgrownfromfortysix teachersandsomefourteenhundredchildrenin1951tooverseventeenthousandteachersandclose tohalfamillionchildrenasofthiswriting.Notsurprisingly,theprogramhasalltheproblems commontolargebureaucracies,aswellassomerelatedtotheuniquecharacteristicsofthe populationserved.Theresultsofresearchandevaluationstudiesarebeingemployedasabasisfor policyandprogrammodifications. TheOfficeofIndianEducationwouldliketodomuchmoretoraisethequalityoftheschoolingit offers,buttheeconomiccrisisgrippingthecountryhascaused 325

restraintinalldomesticfunding,includingthatvitaltobringingaboutthechangessobadlyneeded. Thissituationaffectsallaspectsofresearchanddevelopment,especiallythepreparationof curriculummaterialsandteachertraining. BIBLIOGRAPHY AMPIBAC.1981.Instrumentacindelaeducacinbilingeybicultural.Oaxaca:SEP/DGEI. AranadeE.Swadesh,etal.1975.LaslenguasdeMxico.Vol.1.MexicoCity:SEP/INAH. DiarioOfficialdelaFederacin.1978.Mexico. ChavezJ.P.Bernal1982."Unresumendelaevaluacinparalareorientacindelosalbergues escolares."InHaciaunMxicopluricultural:delacastellanizacinalaeducacinindgena bilingeybicultural,ed.A.P.ScanlonandJ.LezamaMorfin.MexicoCity:SEP/DGEI,pp.419 41. FarrisN.M.1983."IndiansinColonialYucatan:ThreePerspectives."InSpaniardsandIndiansin SoutheasternMesoamerica,ed.M.MacLeodandR.Wasserstrom.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraska Press,pp.139. FosterG.M.1961.CultureandConquest:America'sSpanishHeritage.NewYork:Wenner Gren/VikingFund. GibsonC.1964.TheAztecsUnderSpanishRule.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress. GonzlezG.E.,etal.1982."Fundamentosjurdicos,tericosymetadolgicosdelaeducacin bilingebiculturalenMxico."Unpublishedmanuscript. HeathS.B.1972.TellingTongues:LanguagePolicyinMexico,ColonytoNation.NewYork: TeachersCollegePress. KaufmanT.1974.IdiomasdeMesoamrica.GuatemalaCity:JosdePinedaIbarra,Ministeriode Educacion. LpezG.1982."CastellanizacinylaprcticapedaggicaenescuelasbilingesdelValledel Mezquital."InHaciaunMxicopluricultural,ed.A.P.ScanlonandJ.LezamaMorfn.Mexico City:SEP/DGEI,pp.36795. MexicoIndigena.1977.GruposindgenasdeMexico.MexicoCity:InstitutoNacionalIndigenista (May),Centerfold. ModianoN.1982."Salidyescribid:elprocesodeelaboracindematerialdidcticoparala enseanzadelalectoescrituraenlenguasindgenas."InHaciaunMxicopluricultural,ed.A.P. ScanlonandJ.LezamaMorfn.MexicoCity:SEP/DGEI,pp.22331. .1984."BilingualBiculturalEducationinMexico:RecentResearch."Contemporary EducationalPsychology. ModianoN.,P.Maldonado,andS.VillasanaB.1982."AccuratePerceptionofColoredIllustration: RatesofComprehensioninMexicanIndianChildren."JournalofCrossCulturalPsychology.13: 49095. NahmadS.Sittn1982."Indoamricayeducacin:etnocidioyetnodesarrollo?"InHaciaun Mxicopluricultural,ed.A.P.ScanlonandJ.LezamaMorfn.MexicoCitySEP/DGEI,pp.2144. RoldnJ.1675.Ordenanzas.Oxchuc,Chiapas:unpublishedmanuscript.(Popularlyknownasthe LibroSagrado.) 326

RosM.C.Romero1981.Bilingismoyeducacin:unestudioenMichoacn.MexicoCity:Instituto NacionalIndigenista. RuzE.Velasco,andF.BonillaCastillo.1983.Estadsticaeducativaindgena.MexicoCity: SEP/DGEI. SecretaradeProgramacinyPresupuesto.1983.Xcensogeneraldepoblacinyvivienda,1980. Vol.2.MexicoCity:SPP/InstitutoNacionaldeEstadstica,GeografiaeInformacin. ShermanW.L.1979.ForcedNativeLaborinSixteenthCenturyCentralAmerica.Lincoln: UniversityofNebraskaPress. StrossB.1983."TheLanguagesofZuyua."AmericanEthnologist10:15064. SwadeshM.,andE.Arana.1975."ClasificacindelaslenguasdeMxico(19621964)."InLas lenguasdeMxico,ed.E.AranadeSwadeshetal.Vol.1.MexicoCity:SEP/INAH,pp.8488. TaylorW.B.1972.LandlordandPeasantinColonialOaxaca.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversity Press. TovarE.C.,andM.A.Cabrera.1982."Laevaluacinenelpreescolarindgenadentrodelmarco delaeducacinbilingeybicultural."InHaciaunMxicopluricultural,ed.A.P.ScanlonandJ. LezamaMorfn.MexicoCity:SEP/DGEI,pp.40318. WasserstromR.1983.ClassandSocietyinCentralChiapas.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press. WolffE.1959.SonsoftheShakingEarth:ThePeopleofMexicoandGuatemalaTheirLand, HistoryandCulture.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. 327 [Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 328

16 ASPECTSOFBILINGUALISMINMOROCCO AbdeliBentahila Withitsgeographicalpositionatthejunctureoftwocontinents,atthenorthernmosttipof Africa,themostwesternpointoftheArabworld,andyetonlyatwentyminuteflightawayto Europe,itishardlysurprisingthatMoroccoshouldbeamultilingualcountrywithalonghistory asameetingpointforcontrastingcultures.Withinitspresentpopulationofover20million,of whomalmost9millionareurbandwellers(figuresfromtheNationalCensus,1982).wecan distinguishanumberofdifferentcategoriesofmonolingualandbilingualspeakers,though unfortunatelythereare,tomyknowledge,noprecisefiguresavailableconcerningthe membershipofthesecategories. Itisperhapsnecessarytomentionherethatthetermbilingualhasbeenvariouslyused;some includeamongbilingualsthosewhohaveaverylimited,possiblypurelyreceptiveknowledgeof oneoftheirtwolanguages(e.g.,Diebold,1961),whileothersrestrictthetermtothosewhose proficiencyineachoftwolanguagesiscomparabletothatofnativespeakers(e.g.,Bloomfield, 1933;Christophersen,1948).Aswewillseebelow,Moroccansincludespeakersofbothtypesas wellasalltherangeinbetween.Inwhatfollows,thetermbilingualwill,forthesakeof convenience,beusedinabroadsensetodescribenotonlythosewhoarefamiliarwithtwoand onlytwolanguages,butalsothemanyMoroccanswhomightelsewherebetermedmultilinguals, sincetheyhaveaknowledgeofthreeormorelanguages. Inthefirstplace,MoroccohasalargegroupofmonolingualswhoseonlylanguageisMoroccan Arabic,thecolloquialvarietyofArabicwhichisthemothertongueofprobablythemajorityof Moroccans.Suchmonolingualstendtohavehadnoeducation,andthusprobablyconstitutea majorityoftheoldergeneration.ThevariouscolloquialdialectsofArabicformacontinuum,so thatthedialectspokeninMorocco,attheextremewesternedgeoftheArabic 329

speakingworld,isfairlysimilartothatusedinAlgeriaandTunisia,butdivergesconsiderablyfrom thoseoftheMiddleEast;thus,aspeakerof,say,IraqiArabicwouldhaveconsiderabledifficultyin understandingaspeakerofMoroccanArabic.(Ontheotherhand,inrecentyearsmanyMoroccans, includingthemonolingualsidentifiedabove,haveacquiredsomefamiliaritywiththeEgyptian ArabicdialectbywatchingthemanyEgyptianfilmsshownonMoroccantelevisionandinthe cinema.) AsecondgroupofMoroccansconsistsofthosewhosemothertongueisnotMoroccanArabicbut Berber.ThetermBerberisusedtocoveranumberofwidelydifferingdialectsthatarenotentirely mutuallycomprehensible.InMorocco,threemajordialectareascanbeidentified.Tarifitisthe dialectofBerberusedbyinhabitantsoftheRifMountains,inthenorthofMorocco;Tamazightis spokeninareasoftheAtlasMountains,incentralandsoutheastMorocco;andTashelhaitisthe dialectofthesouthwest.OnlythoseBerberspeakerswholivefairlyremotelivesinpredominantly Berberspeakingareasareatalllikelytoremainmonolinguals.ThemajorityofBerberspeakers, eveniftheyreceivenoformaleducation,alsolearnMoroccanArabicatanearlyage,oncethey begintoexploretheworldoutsidetheirimmediatefamily.AthirdcategoryofMoroccans,then, consistsofthosewhoarebilingualinBerberandMoroccanArabic. NeitherBerbernorMoroccanArabichasanystandardlyrecognizedwrittenform.Hence,inorderto obtaineventhemostelementaryeducationtheMoroccanhastoacquiresomeknowledgeof ClassicalArabic,whichdiffersconsiderablyfromMoroccanArabicatalllevels:inphonology (somephonemesinClassicalArabichavenoequivalentinMoroccanArabic,andviceversa),lexis (thereareveryextensivedifferencesinvocabularybetweenthetwo),morphology,andsyntax. Giventheextentofthedifferencesbetweenthetwo,onemightwishtomaintainthatknowledgeof bothMoroccanandClassicalArabicconstitutesanothercategoryofbilingualism;however,in MoroccothosewhoknowonlyMoroccanandClassicalArabicareconventionallydescribedas monolinguals.Thus,allMoroccanswhohavereceivedsomedegreeofeducationpossessatleast someknowledgeofClassicalArabic,buttherearemanydegreesofproficiency,rangingfromthose whoseeducationwaslimitedtoastudyoftheKoranandwhoarethusfamiliarwithitsverses,parts ofwhichtheymayincorporateintotheirownspeechinformalandreligiouscontexts,tothosewho havestudiedClassicalArabictothelevelofhighereducation.Thosewhohavereceivedtheir educationentirelythroughthemediumofArabicareknowninMoroccoas"Arabisants"and includemembersofsomeprofessionssuchaslawyersandteachers. ThemajorityofeducatedMoroccansarealsoproficientinFrenchbecausetheyhavereceivedpart oralloftheireducationthroughthislanguage.Inaddition,therearemanyrelativelyuneducated Moroccans,especiallyinthetowns,whohavesomeknowledgeofspokenFrench,usuallyacquired throughtheirwork.Thisisthecaseforretiredsoldiers,shopkeepersworkinginthemodernareas 330

ofthetowns,hotelportersandcleaners,andmanyotherswhosejobsbringthemintocontactwith foreigners.Again,onecandistinguishmanydegreesofArabicFrenchbilingualism.A.M.Blondel andF.Dcorsire(1962)proposedaclassificationidentifyingseveralcategoriesofbilingual speakers,exhibitingdifferentdegreesofproficiencyandacculturation,rangingfromtheintellectual whoisaperfectlybalancedbilingual,abletoparticipateinandprofitfromtwocultures,tothosefor whomArabicisdominantandFrenchismerelyaninstrumentusedatwork,with,somewherein between,acategoryofspeakerswhoarenotfullyproficientineitherlanguageandwhosufferalack ofconfidenceandlossofidentity. ToaddtothecomplexityoftheMoroccanlanguagesituation,inthenorthofthecountrymany inhabitantsuseSpanishratherthanFrenchasasecondlanguage,especiallyintownssuchas Tangier,Tetouan,Larache,Nador,andElHouceima.Again,someofthesehaveacquiredahigh degreeofproficiencyinSpanishthroughformaleducationinthelanguage,whileothershave simplypickedupthelanguagethroughtheirdealingswithSpanishpeople.Therearealso MoroccanswhoareproficientinbothSpanishandFrench. ThepresenceofasmallJewishcommunityinMoroccoaddsfurtherdiversitytothelanguage situation.TheJewslivinginMoroccocanbedividedintotwomaingroupsonthelinguisticlevel. ThefirstconsistsofthosewhosenativelanguageisSpanish,whoarefoundonlyinthenorthern citiesmentionedearlier,andwhoaredescendantsoftheJewswhowerebanishedfromSpaininthe fourteenthandfifteenthcenturies.ThesecondgroupisfoundintheotherpartsofMoroccoandhas dialectalArabicasafirstlanguage;theseincludethedescendantsoftheSpanishJewswhosettled inareasawayfromthestronglyHispanicizedtownsofthenorth,togetherwiththeoriginal MoroccanJews,whoseancestorshadlivedinMoroccolongbeforetheemigrationfromSpain began.Membersofbothgroupsarelikelytobecomebilingualthrougheducationandthrough contactswithotherMoroccans.Thus,thenativeSpanishspeakerslearnMoroccanArabic,andboth groupsacquiresomeproficiencyinHebrew,whichistaughtinconnectionwithreligiousinstruction intheJewishschoolsystem.Moreover,asisnotedbyH.Zafrani(1980),sincetheperiodofFrench colonizationtheArabicspeakingJewshavewholeheartedlyadoptedFrenchasasecondlanguage, sothatyoungJewsnowadaysoftenseemtoprefertousethislanguage,withitsassociationswith Europeanculture.AthirdgroupofJews,thosewhosefirstlanguagewasBerberandwholived mainlyinthesouthofMorocco,has,accordingtoH.Zafrani,nowvanishedcompletelythrough massemigrationstoIsrael,whichhavealsoconsiderablyreducedthesizeoftheothergroups. Tosummarize,then,Moroccohasalargenumberofdifferenttypesofbilinguals,speaking MoroccanArabic,Berber,orboth,alongwithanycombinationofClassicalArabic,French,and Spanish.OnlyMoroccanArabicandBerberareacquiredasnativelanguages,whereasClassical Arabic,French,andSpanisharetypicallyfirstencounteredinaformaleducationalsetting.French and,inthenorthofMorocco,Spanishhavethestatusofsecondlanguages,inthatthey 331

areusedininteractionswithintheMoroccanspeechcommunity.Theycanbecontrastedwith English,whichisintroducedatalaterstageofsecondaryeducation.AlthoughmanyMoroccansgo ontoachieveconsiderableproficiencyinEnglish,itisnotnaturallyusedininteractionsamong Moroccans,andthushasthestatusofaforeignlanguage.Theconcernhereisnotwiththisorother foreignlanguages. HISTORICALBACKGROUND Thepresenthighlycomplexlanguagesituationistheproductofanumberofdistincthistorical developments.TheoriginalinhabitantsofMoroccoweretheBerbers,anditwasnotuntilthe seventhcenturythattheArabsinvadedfromtheeastandconqueredthearea,bringingwiththem theArabiclanguageandthereligionofIslam.TheBerberslivingintheplainsneartheArab settlementssoonfounditusefultolearnArabicfortradingpuposes.Indeed,accordingtoB.G. Hoffman(1967),largenumbersoftheseBerbersbecamecompletelyarabized,abandoningthe Berberlanguagealtogether,whiletherewerealsoArabswholearnedBerberandabandonedArabic. Thus,theArabicmonolingualsinMoroccotodayincludedescendantsofBerbers,andtheBerber speakersincludedescendantsofArabslanguageisnotaltogetheranaccurateindicatorofethnic origin. EventheBerberslivinginremoteareasofthemountainseventuallybecamefamiliarwithArabic throughcontactwithMuslimpreachers,whosucceededinconvertingthemtoIslam.Thus,fromthe veryoutset,inthemindsofMoroccansArabicwascloselylinkedwithreligion,andthisfactormay helpexplainwhyitwassorapidlyacceptedandrespectedbytheBerbers.AsisdemonstratedinA. Bentahila(1983a),thelinkbetweenArabicandreligionhasremainedstrongtothisday.E.Gellner (1973),inhisstudyofArabsandBerbersinNorthAfrica,alsoemphasizesthereligiousimpactof ArabicontheBerberindividual,who"seeshimselfasamemberofthistribeorthattribe,withinan islamicallyconceivedandpermeatedworldandnotasamemberofalinguisticallydefinedethnic group,inaworldinwhichIslamisbutonethingamongothers"(Gellner,1973:13).Thefactthat BerberisinperpetualcontactwithArabicmeansthatitsvocabularyhasbeengreatlyinfluencedby Arabic.AsL.Brunot(1950:16)observes,"nombreauxsontlesmotsarabesquecesdialectesontdu adopter,concemantsurtoutlareligion,l'administrationetlestransactionscommerciales."Toa lesserextent,MoroccanArabichasalsoborrowedfromBerber. ThesecondmajorhistoricalfactorinthecreationofthepresentlanguagesituationwastheFrench Protectorate,whichlastedfrom1912to1956andextendedoverthewholeofMoroccoexceptfora northernstripunderthecontrolofSpain.ThepolicyoftheFrenchcolonizerswastoinculcate MoroccansocietywiththeculturalvaluesandtastesofFrenchcivilization,andthis,ofcourse, entailedconvincingMoroccansofthesuperiorityoftheFrenchlanguage.R.Bidwell(1973:6) observesthat"ithasalwaysbeenacardinalbeliefofFrenchmen 332

thatthereisonlyonevalidcultureintheworld,thatitistheirdutytoleadallmentowardsitand thatwhereadaptationisnecessaryitisforthenonFrenchtogiveway."Thisassumptionseems tohavebeenthebasisforthe"missioncivilisatrice"towhichtheFrenchinMoroccowere committed.ThemajortoolofthisconceptwasaFrencheducationsystemthatwasintroduced alongsidethelongstandingtraditionalMoroccanone.Oneresultwasthecreationofan oppositionbetweentraditionalandmodernwhichstillremainsinevidenceintheattitudesof ArabicFrenchbilingualstowardthetwolanguages(seeBentahila,1983a). ThetraditionalsystemofeducationinMorocco,datingbacktonotlongaftertheArabinvasion, wasorganizedonthreelevels.Primaryeducationwasprovidedinthe/msi:d/orKoranicschool, wherechildrenlearnedtheKoranbyheart,atthesametimeacquiringbasicskillsinreadingand writingClassicalArabic.Onlythesonsofthewealthycontinuedtheireducationtothesecondary level,wheretheystudiedotheraspectsofIslamicscholarship,aswellasgrammar,logic,and literature.ThehigheststudieswerecarriedoutattheUniversityofKaraouineinFez,foundedin 859A.D.,wherestudentsgraduatedasoulema(Islamicscholars)andwherethebranchesof studyincludedphilosophy,philology,theology,astronomy,algebra,andmedicine. ThenewFrenchsystemofeducationwhichwasintroducedbesidethistraditionalonecreated considerablediversity.ThenewschoolssetupincludedEuropeanschoolsintendedmainlyfor thechildrenoftheFrenchcolonizersthemselves,althoughsomeupperclassMoroccanchildren werealsoadmitted.Onawiderscale,theysetupFrancoIslamicschools,whereFrenchwasthe mainlanguageofinstruction,ClassicalArabicbeingusedonlyfortheteachingofreligious studies.HerepupilsweretaughtmoreaboutFrenchhistoryandculturethanabouttheirown. TherewerealsoFrancoJewishschoolsdifferingonlyinthekindofreligiousinstruction provided,withHebrewbeingusedinsteadofClassicalArabic.Highereducationwasopento onlyaverysmallnumberofMoroccans,andmostofthesewereobligedtocompletetheirstudies inFrance. In1930,theFrenchtookafurthersteptowarddiversificationwiththe"DahirBerbre"(Berber Decree),whichsetupanothercategoryofschools,reservedforBerbers,whereBerberand Frenchweretaught,butnotArabic.ThisstephadtheaimofweakeningthelinksbetweenArabs andBerbersandemphasizingthedistinctionbetweenthetwoethnicgroups,whichhadnever beenreflectedinthetraditionaleducationsystem.Atthesametime,itrepresentedadetermined attempttointegratetheBerbersintotheChristiancultureoftheFrench,bypassingArabicwith itsindissolublelinkswithIslam.Apparently,theFrenchinMoroccobelievedthat"theBerbers, havingnocultureoftheirown,wouldnotresistFrenchculture"(DeCaix,quotedinBidwell, 1973:53).TheMoroccansdidnotacceptthispolicyofdivideandrule,however,apolicythat becameoneofthekeyfactorsleadingtoanupsurgeinnationalisticfeelingandareturnto traditionalvalues.Oneresultofthisreactionwasthesettingupofprivateschools,sponsoredby Islamicscholars,whichwereintendedtorivalthevariouscategoriesofFrench 333

schools,whileusingArabicasthemediumofeducation.Aswillbeseen,relicsoftheseschools stillremain. In1956,theProtectoratecametoanend.Independencebroughtwithitthepossibilityofradical changesinthelanguagesituation,particularlywithregardtotheeducationalandadministrative sectors.Afiveyearplanwassetupforthereorganizationoftheeducationsystem,andfourmain objectiveswereestablished:unification,universalization,Moroccanization,andArabization. (Formorediscussion,seeZartman,1964;Moatassime,1974;andBentahila,1983a).Thefirstof theseobjectivesinvolvedareductioninthediversityofschoolsintroducedbytheFrench(not forgettingthat,inthenorth,furtherdiversityhadbeencreatedthroughtheestablishmentof schoolsusingSpanishasthemainlanguageofinstruction).Aunifiedsystemofprimaryschools wassetup,butthesestillledtoachoiceoftypesofsecondaryschool:betweenthebilingualones wherebothFrenchandArabicwereusedasmediaofinstructionandthelessnumerousarabized schools.Thearabizedschoolsderivedfromtheprivateschoolssetupbythenationalistsin responsetoFrenchpolicies,whereArabicwasmadethemediumofinstructionforallsubjects. Sidebysidewiththeseschoolswereschoolsofferingthe"original"education,ofthetypethat hadexistedbeforetheProtectorate,linkedverycloselytoIslamicscholarship. Thesecondobjective,universalization,wasconcernedwithmakingeducationaccessibletoa largerproportionoftheMoroccanpopulation.UndertheFrenchsystem,whichwashighly competitiveandselective,thenumberofMoroccansattendingschoolwasextremelylimited, whileevenfewermanagedtoobtainusefulqualifications.Considerableeffortsweretherefore madetoincreaseattendancefigures,andschoolingwasforsomeyearsmadecompulsory betweentheagesofsixandfourteen.However,becauseofseriouspracticaldifficulties,in1963 theperiodofcompulsoryeducationwasreducedtoageseventothirteen.Thepercentageof childreninthisagegroupattendingschool,whichincreasedrapidlyfrom17percentin1956, whenindependencewasdeclared,to47percentin196465,fellafterthispoint,reachingonly33 percentin197273(Baina,1981).Indeed,despitecontinuedrapidexpansioninthenumberand sizeofschools,theaimofuniversaleducationinthisagegrouphasneveryetbeenachieved, simplybecausethepopulationhascontinuedtoincreaseatanextremelyhighrate.Attheother endofthescale,alongsidetheUniversityofKaraouine,themodernUniversityMohamedVwas openedinRabat,followedbyothersinFezandMarrakech.Morerecently,othernewuniversities andfacultieslinkedtothefirstuniversitieshavebeensetup,aswellasvariousinstitutesof highereducation,bringingthetotalnumberofstudentsinuniversitiesandotherinstitutestoover ninetythousandin198283(figuresfromLeMarocenChiffres,1982). Thelargescaleexpansionachievedinaccordancewiththissecondobjectiveposedsome problemsfortheachievementofthethird,whichsoughttoreplacethelargeproportionofforeign teachersbyMoroccannationals.Atfirst,anattemptwasmadetoreducethenumberofstaffof FrenchnationalityandtoreplacethembystafffromtheMiddleEast,especiallyEgypt.This,it washoped, 334

wouldalsofacilitatethefourthobjectivetoreplaceFrenchbyArabicasamediumforeducation. Thisprojectwassoonabandoned,fortheMiddleEasternteachersdidnotseemtoadaptwelltothe Moroccansystem;theteachingmethodstheyuseddidnotaccordwiththeFrenchstylemethodsto whichtheMoroccanshadbecomeaccustomed.Theyalsofacedlinguisticdifficulties,inasmuchas theirlackofknowledgeofeitherFrenchorMoroccanArabicmadeitdifficultforthemtointegrate withtheotherteachersandindeedwiththewidercommunityinwhichtheyfoundthemselves.The numberofFrenchexpatriateteachershadtobeincreasedconsiderablyafter1963inordertocope withthevastexpansioninnumbers.Atthepresenttime,theprocessofMoroccanizationhasbeen completedintheprimaryschools,whereallstaffarenowMoroccan,andtheproportionofforeign teachersleftinsecondaryschoolsisdecreasingyearbyyear.In197677,therewere7,872foreign teachersinsecondaryschools,in197980,4,954,andin198283,thefigurehadbeenreducedto 3,624(figuresfromLeMarocenChiffres,1976,1980,and1982).Ontheotherhand,thenumberof foreignersteachinginhighereducationisstillincreasingeveryyear,thoughrecentlytheriseseems tobelevelingoff.(AgainaccordingtoLeMarocenChiffres,in197576,therewere374foreign teachersinMoroccanuniversities;in197980,860,andin198283,934.) Thefourthobjective,Arabization,wastorestoreArabictoitsformerpositionasthesolemediumof instructionforalllevelsofeducation,andtherebyalsotoestablishitastheworkinglanguagefor allspheresofactivity.Thisaimwasobviouslyareactionagainstthesituationthathadprevailed duringtheProtectorate,whenMoroccanshadbeenobligedtoadoptanalienlanguage,imposedon themfromtheoutsideandbearingnorelationtotheirowncultureandheritage.Therewerealso morepractical,financialreasonswhyArabizationseemeddesirable,for,asA.Moatassime(1974) notes,abilingualadministration,involvingtheproductionofalldocumentsintwolanguages,was farmorecostlythanoneusingasinglelanguage.InaspiringtotheaimofArabization,people recalledtheMiddleAgeswhenArabichadbeenasuccessfulvehicleforscholarshipinbotharts andsciences.However,althoughaboutthirtyyearshavenowpassedsinceindependencewas declared,Arabizationhasstillnotbeencompleted,anditprobablyremainstheaspectofMorocco's languagesituationwhichprovokesmostdebateanddiscussiontoday.Toseewhy,afterallthistime, theroleofFrenchinMoroccoisstillofsomeimportance,weneedtoconsiderinmoredetailsome aspectsofthepresentsituation. THEPRESENTSITUATION ConsiderablycomplicatingthepresentlanguagesituationinMoroccoisthediglossicrelationship thatholdsbetweenMoroccanArabicandClassicalArabic.Diglossiacanbedefinedasthe coexistenceinaspeechcommunityoftwodistinctvarietiesofalanguage,whereeachvarietyhas quiteseparatefunctionsandthetwocontrastsharplyinstatus.One,usuallyreferredtoasthehigh variety,is 335

regardedasprestigiousandisassociatedwitheducationandrefinement,whiletheother,alow variety,isregardedasinferiorandlookedonnegatively.(Forsomegeneraldiscussionofdiglossia, seeFerguson,1959;Marais,1930;andLecerf,1954.SeealsoElgibali,thisvolume.)Moroccan Arabic,asthelowvariety,isthelanguageusedineverydayinformalexchanges,andtheonly languageofilliterateArabicspeakers,whileClassicalArabic,thehighvariety,istheonlywritten one,alsousedinformalspeeches,lectures,andnewsbroadcasts.LiterateMoroccansarethusfaced withadichotomy,sincetheycannoteasilywritedownwhattheymightsayorutterinaneveryday situationthingstheymightwriteorread. Alongwiththesefunctionaldifferencesgoesaverysharpcontrastbetweenpeople'sattitudestothe twovarieties.MoroccanArabicisregardedasaninferiorformunworthyofseriousattention, whereasClassicalArabicisreveredforitsrichnessandbeauty.(See,forinstance,theresultsofa surveydescribedinBentahila,1983a.)Asastandardlanguage,ClassicalArabic,unlikeMoroccan Arabic,hasbeencodifiedindictionariesandgrammars.Incontrast,theonlysuchdescriptionsof MoroccanArabicarethosewrittenfornonnativespeakerswishingtolearnthelanguage,andnot intendedforusebyMoroccans.TheprestigeofClassicalArabicisfurtherenhancedbyits associationswithreligion,sinceitisbelievedtobetheverylanguagethroughwhichGod communicatedtheKorantoMuhammad.ThisspecialreligioussignificancehasmadeClassical Arabicalmostuniqueasalanguagepreservedpracticallyunchangedovermanycenturies.Other languagesare,ofcourse,inastateofconstantchange.Incontrast,MoroccanArabichasbeen subjecttotheinflucenceofFrenchandSpanish,aswellasBerber,andhasborrowedextensively frombothofthem.ClassicalArabic,however,hasbeenartificiallyprotectedfromsuchinfluences. Finally,ClassicalArabicalsoreceivesimportancebecauseofitsroleasthelanguagethatunitesthe variousArabicspeakingnations(whosecolloquialdialects,aswenotedearlier,arenotalways mutuallycomprehensible),asasymbolfortheArabs'commonculture,andasthevehiclefortheir literaryandscholarlyheritage. AlongsidethesetwocontrastingvarietiesofArabic,Frenchhasmaintainedasignificantroleinthe lifeofalargeproportionofeducatedMoroccans.Outsidetheeducationsystem,itcontinuestobe widelyusedinmanyspheres.Itiswithoutdoubtstillthelanguageparexcellenceofallscientific andtechnologicalmattersinMorocco,althoughchangesarebeingintroduced,aswewillsee.Italso playsanimportantroleintheeconomicandcommercialsectors,beingthemajorlanguageusedin theoperationsofbanks,buildingsocieties,andmanyotherbusinesses.Itisimportanttorealize, however,thatitsfunctionsarenotlimitedtosuchprofessionaldomains,butthatitalsoplaysan importantpartinthefieldofleisureactivitiesandentertainments. MoroccohasoneradiostationwhichbroadcastsonlyinFrenchandanotherwhichisbilingual, switchingbackandforthbetweenArabicandFrenchatfrequentintervalsthroughouttheday.The singletelevisionchannelprovides 336

programsinFrenchaswellasArabic,andmanyofthetelevisionadvertisementsarealsoinFrench. SeveralofthedailynewspaperspublishedinMoroccoareinFrench,andthereisalsoawealthof weeklyandmonthlypublicationsinthislanguage.Itisinteresting,too,thatalocalnewspaperlike LeJournaldeTangerusesbothArabicandFrenchineachedition,withcolumnsinArabicand Frenchmixedtogether,sidebysideonthesamepage.Someothernewspapersandmagazines,such asAlbayaneandAlAssas,producetwoseparateversionsofeachissue,underthesamename,one inArabicandtheotherinFrench,toappealtoallsectionsofthereadingpublic.Asforoutside entertainments,inthemajorcinemasinthetownsfilmsinFrench(whichincludeAmericanand otherEuropeanfilmsdubbedintoFrench)seemtobefarmorepopularthanthoseinArabic,ascan beseenfromaglanceatthecinemaadvertisementsinthenationalnewspapers.Moreover,filmsin EgyptianArabicareoftenprovidedwithFrenchsubtitleswhenshowninMorocco,inorderto facilitatetheirunderstandingbyMoroccans. InasurveydescribedindetailinBentahila(1983a),itwasfoundthatasampleofMoroccan bilingualinformantslikedradioandtelevisionprogramsinFrenchbetterthanthoseinArabic,and preferredtoreadnewspapersandbooksinFrenchratherthaninArabic.Themajorreasonsgiven forthesepreferenceswereinallcasesthatthematerialspresentedinFrenchwerefelttobemoreup todate,varied,sophisticated,andlively.Ontheotherhand,thesmallnumberofinformantswho saidtheypreferredmaterialsinArabictendedtojustifytheirchoicessimplybymentioningthefact thatArabicwas"their"language,orsuggestingthatforreasonsofpatriotismMoroccansoughtto prefermaterialinArabic.Thedifferencesbetweenthekindsofjustificationgivenforeachchoice thuspresentaninterestingcontrast.Arabicseemstobefavoredforidealisticreasonsalmostasa matterofprinciple,whereasthosewhopreferFrenchmaterialhavestronginstrumental motivations,beinginfluencedbywhattheythemselvescangain,whetherininformationor entertainmentvalue,fromthematerialsitself. MoroccanswhohavereceivedabilingualeducationinArabicandFrencharethusstilllikelyto findthemselvesusingbothoftheselanguagesinthecourseoftheireverydaylives.However,in certaindomainstheywillprobablyfinditmoreconvenientorappropriatetouseoneratherthanthe other.AninvestigationreportedinBentahila(1983a)foundthatthekindofinterlocutor,typeof setting,andtopicofconversationallinfluencethechoiceoflanguagebysuchbilinguals,andthat generallyFrenchtendstobeusedmorethanArabicinsituationsinvolvingacertaindegreeof formality,whileArabicisfavoredinsituationsofintimacy.Athirdpatternoflanguageuseisthe tendencytouse,notFrenchaloneorArabicalone,butamixtureofthetwoinvolvingconstantcode switchingbetweenArabicandFrench,whichcouldalmostbeidentifiedasanotherseparatevariety intherepertoireofArabicFrenchbilinguals.(Onthissubject,seeBentahila,1983a;Bentahila, 1983b;andBentahilaandDavies,1983). Evidencehasbeenobtainedthroughavarietyoftests,designedtoinvestigate 337

consciousandunconsciousattitudes,toshowthatFrench,ClassicalArabic,andMoroccanArabic eachhavetheirowndistinctimagesandassociationsinthemindsofMoroccanbilinguals,andthat eachisfelttobeusefulfordifferentpurposes(seeBentahila,1983a,fordetails).Thesetestsfound thatFrench,incontrasttoArabic,isconsistentlyassociatedwithmodernity,education,and sophisticationandisperceivedasameansofsocialadvancement.Inamatchedguisetest, Moroccanswerejudgedtobemoreimportant,educated,andgenerallymorefavorablyperceivedby otherbilingualswhenspeakingFrenchthanwhenspeakingMoroccanArabic.MoroccanArabic,on theotherhand,isjudgedtobeanindispensablemeansforeverydaycommunicationwithordinary people,butofnootherinherentvalue,whereasClassicalArabicseemstobemostprizednotforits utilitybutforwhatitsymbolizes:religion,patriotism,andtheArabidentity. THEEDUCATIONSYSTEMANDARABIZATION WemaynowreturntolookatthewayArabizationpolicieshaveinfluencedthepresenteducation system.Sofar,progresstowardmakingArabicthemediumusedinalldomainshasbeenrather erratic,withfrequentreversalsofpolicyandinconsistenciesofplanning,andsomeprojectshave beenabandoned.Problemsinassemblingsufficientnumbersofteachersqualifiedtoworkthrough themediumofArabic,whichwerecompoundedbythehugeexpansioninpupilandstudent numbers,havehinderedtheprogressofmanyschemes.Intheearlyyearsafterindependence, eveningclasseswereorganizedinordertoprepareteacherstoteachthroughthemediumofArabic. SomeotherArabicspeakingcountriesalsohelpedtoestablishinstitutesforthetrainingofteachers. Yetdespitealltheseefforts,progresstowardArabizationhasbeenhalting,andhasledtocertain discontinuities,wherepupilswhobeganthestudyofcertainsubjectsinArabicwereafterwards obligedtoswitchtoFrenchinordertocontinuetheirstudiesinthesamefield.Therehavealsobeen fluctuationsinthesupportforArabizationamongplannersandadministratorsovertheyears;even thosewhoexpressedverbalsupportforArabizationpolicieshavenotalwaysaidedtheir implementation. Despitethesesetbacks,theArabizationofprimaryeducationisnowcomplete,withevenarithmetic andscience,whichusedtobetaughtinFrench,nowconductedthroughthemediumofArabic.Itis onlytheFrenchlanguageitselfwhichisnowpresentedthroughthemediumofFrench,andthisis nowintroducedonlyinthethirdyearofprimaryeducation,insteadoffromtheverybeginning,as usedtobethecaseduringtheProtectorate.Atsecondarylevel,Arabizationplansareprogressing well,withworkongoingtowardthepreparationofsuitabletextbooksbutatthemomentFrenchis stillusedforsomesciencecourses.Attheuniversitylevel,Frenchremainsthesolemediumof instructionforallscientificandtechnologicalsubjects.Outsideeducation,manysectionsofthe governmentadministrationhavenowbeenArabized,butagainFrenchhasnotbeen 338

eradicatedfromthedomainsoftechnology.However,therehasbeenprogressindeveloping adequatematerials,throughtheworkoftheArabizationOfficeinRabat,whichworksin cooperationwithsimilarorganizationsinotherArabcountriesinestablishingglossariesof Arabictechnicaltermsinvariousdomains. TheseattemptstoinfluencetheMoroccans'languageusethroughlegislationhaveundoubtedly hadsomeeffect,especiallyonthosenowpassingthroughtheeducationsystem.However,while thepolicyofArabizationisclearlybasedonanidealisticconcernthatMoroccoshouldassertits identityasanArabcountryandthrowoffallvestigesofcolonialinfluence,itsapplicationhas raisedanumberofpracticaldifficulties.Oneproblemisthat,whilepupilsarenowintroducedto Frenchatalaterstageinsteadoffromtheirfirstdayatschool,anduseitfarlessthanwas previouslythecaseintheirearlyyearsatschool,theyareneverthelessstillexpectedtobeableto workthroughthemediumofFrenchiftheywishtopursuescientificstudiestoahigherlevel.A generalloweringinthedegreeofproficiencyachievedinFrenchmeansthattodaymanystudents experiencerealdifficultyincopingwithuniversitystudiesthroughthismedium.Theproblem would,ofcourse,beresolvedifArabizationcouldbeextendedtocoverthesehigherlevelstoo, buttherearestilldifficultiestobeovercomebeforethiscanbeachieved. Atthepurelylinguisticlevel,therehavebeencomplaintsabouttheimpracticalityoftheArabic writingsystem,withitslargenumberofsymbolsanddiacriticswhichmakesprintinginArabic expensive.AmovetowardresolvingthisproblemhasbeenbroughtaboutbyG.A.Lakhdar's development(seeLakhdar,1976)ofasimplifiedsystemforprintingandtyping,whichpreserves theprinciplesofArabiccalligraphywhilereducingthetotalnumberofcharactersrequired. ApplicationofthissystemhasmadetheproductionofmaterialinArabicmoreeconomical,for instance,byreducingthenumberofkeysrequiredonatypewriter.Evenonthispoint,however, thereisdisagreement,andthesystemhasnotbeenwidelyadoptedoutsideMorocco.Another problemconcernstheabsenceofshortvowelindicatorsinwrittenArabic,whichmeansthat considerabletimeandeffortarerequiredtoacquirefastreadingskills.Thishasoftenbeencited asaserioushindrancetotheuseofArabic,by,forinstance,Marais(1930),Lakhdar(1976), Lecerf(1954),Monteuil(1960),Moatassime(1974),andBenyakhlef(1979). Moreseriously,therehavebeendifficultiesinequippingClassicalArabicwiththelargesetof preciselydefinednewtechnicaltermsrequiredtodealwithmodernscientificadvances.Among thereasonssuggestedforthishavebeenclaimsthatthemorphologicalstructureofArabicdoes notlenditselftoborrowingfromotherlanguages(Lakhdar,1976),thatthelanguagecontains largenumbersofimpreciselydefinedsynonymsand,moregenerally,thatitissomehowan inherentlyvagueandimpreciselanguage(Monteuil,1960;Shouby,1951).Thedifficultieshave beencompoundedbythelackofcoordinationbetweenthedifferentArabicspeakingcountries, whichhasmadeevenasimpleexchangeoftextbooksimpractical.Manycountriesseemtohave devisedtheirownsetsof 339

termswithoutregardforthoseusedbyothers,sothat,ironicallyenough,ataconferenceoftheArab SchoolonScienceandTechnology,heldinRabatin1983,itwasfeltnecessaryforallcontributions tobepresentedthroughthemediumofeitherEnglishorFrench,butnotArabic!However,the organizationofsuchaconferencedoesshowthatrecentlyconsiderableprogresshasbeenmadewith regardtocooperationbetweendifferentcountries,andthatinterestingresearchisbeingcarriedout inattemptingtoapplythelatestdevelopmentsincomputingandinformationprocessingtoArabic materialsandtomachinetranslationintoArabic. Despitesomeoftheclaimsmentionedintheprecedingparagraph,itcanbearguedthatthemost seriousobstaclestoArabizationpoliciesarenotsomuchlinguisticaspsychological(seeBentahila, 1983a,andforthcomingforthisargument).ItisnotthenatureoftheArabiclanguageitselfwhich preventstheestablishmentofterminologyandthepreparationofprecisescientifictexts,butrather theverydeeplyentrenchedattitudestothelanguagewhichwerementionedearlier:thefactthat ClassicalArabicisassociatedwiththepastandisfelttobesomethingthatshouldbepreservedasit wasandprotectedfromexternalinfluences.Theseattitudesarestrengthenedthroughthetraditional wayinwhichArabicistaughtinschool,whichinvolvesmuchmemorization,copying,andthestudy ofhistoricalratherthanmoderntexts,withthefocusalwaysonwrittenmaterialanda correspondingneglectoforalskills.Moreover,theapproachusedlaysgreateremphasisonstyleand eloquence,thewayideasareexpressedratherthantheideasthemselves.Thisexcessiveconcern withhowtouseClassicalArabicmakesmanyMoroccanshesitanttouseitatallwhentheymerely wanttoexpresssomethinginthesimplestandmostdirectway. Unfortunately,plannershaverarelyattemptedtomakeanobjectiveevaluationoftheattitudinal factorslyingbehindcurrentproblems.Onthecontrary,theargumentsadvancedforArabization itself,asfrequentlydebatedinthepressandthemedia,tendtobecouchedinsubjectiveandemotive terms,appealingtoidealisticnotionssuchaspatriotismandnationalintegrityratherthanpractical concernssuchasconvenienceandeconomy.However,anyultimatelysatisfactoryresolutionof Morocco'slanguageproblems,ineducationorelsewhere,willdependonattitudestothelanguages asmuchasonthelanguagesthemselves. ArecentstudyoftheattitudesofasampleofeducatedbilingualstowardArabization(Bentahila, 1983a)foundthat,whilemostoftherespondentsdidexpresssympathywiththeidealsofpromoting theuseofArabicandtherebyreinforcingMorocco'strueidentityasanArabandMuslimcountry, andrejectedovertcriticismsofthepolicyofArabization,theiranswersneverthelessrevealeda strongattachmenttothebilingualArabicFrenchsystemthroughwhichtheythemselveswere educated.WhilefirmlyrejectingtheideathatsciencecouldnotbetaughtinArabic,they neverthelessindicatedtheirownpreferencethatitshouldbetaughtinFrench.Amajorityfavored themaintenanceofbilingualeducationandfeltthatknowingbothArabicandFrenchwasasource ofenrichmentwhichenabledthemtoexpressthemselvesbetterthanwouldotherwise 340

bethecase;only8percentclaimedtoregrettheirbilingualism.Strikingly,theystronglyendorsed thesuggestionthatMoroccansfeelclosertoEuropethantotheMiddleEast.Therewouldthusseem tobesomethingofaconflictinthemindsofsuchbilingualsbetweentheirtheoreticalsupportfor Arabization,asanideal,andtheirstrongawarenessofthepracticaladvantagesofbilingualism. GiventhatthiskindofArabicFrenchbilingualrepresentsamajorityoftheeducatedyounger generation(thenumberofMoroccanspursuingamonolingualArabiceducationinstateschoolsis relativelysmall:only23,660in198283,asopposedto878,574pupilsinbilingualstateschools figuresfromLeMarocenChiffres,1982),theirviewsshouldbegivencarefulattention. Findingssuchasthesesuggestthattheplannersshouldnotsimplypursuethegoaloferadicating Frenchfromeverydomain,regardlessoftheconsequences.Thepolicytobepursuedshouldbeseen asoneofenrichmentratherthanofreduction,withthefocusondevelopingtheusefulnessofArabic ratherthantoohastilydiscardingtheadvantagesofferedbyaknowledgeofFrench.Onestepthat wouldcontributetothisgoalwouldbeareductionofthedistancebetweenMoroccanArabicand ClassicalArabic.Thedevelopmentofamorepractical,unifiedformofArabicwhichcanreadilybe bothspokenandwritten,andwhichcancopewithallthevariedneedsofitsusers,woulddomore thananythingelsetoestablishArabicastheprimarylanguageofMoroccansinalldomains, Meanwhile,itwouldseemthatmanyMoroccansareunderstandablyreluctanttoabandonthe benefitstowhichtheirbilingualismgivesthemaccess.AdecisivemovetowardArabic monolingualism,howeverappealingonideologicalgrounds,wouldmeansacrificingthesepractical advantagesandmovingagainstthetrendsofthespaceageworld,whereinternational communicationisbecomingevermoreimportant.Thus,whileeffortsshouldbeconcentratedon developingthepotentialofArabictobecomeatrulypracticaltoolwithanuptodateimage,it wouldseemappropriate,inthemeantime,topreserveforMoroccanstheadvantagesof bilingualism,whileensuringthatthebilingualismthattheyareofferedisofwhatLambert (1977:19)callsthe"additive"ratherthanthe"subtractive"sort. SUMMARY ThelanguagesituationinMoroccotodayisacomplexoneinvolvingseveraldifferentlanguages andmanydifferentcategoriesofbilingualspeakers.BerberandMoroccanArabicarespokenas firstlanguages;ClassicalArabicisthehighvarietystandinginadiglossicrelationshipto colloquialMoroccanArabic;andFrenchand,toalesserextent,Spanishareusedassecond languages.Theelementsofthispresentsituationcanbetracedtothecountry'sgeographical positionandtothehistoricalcontactsbetweenpeoplestowhichthispositioncontributed:notably, theArabconquestoftheseventhcenturyandtheFrenchProtectorateofthefirsthalfofthepresent century.Since1956whentheFrenchleft,numerousplanshavebeenproposedtorestoreArabicto itsformerposition 341

astheonlymediumofinstructionandadministration.DespitetheseeffortstoachieveArabization, Frenchstillplaysanimportantroleinmanydomains,especiallyinthefieldsofscienceand technology,aswellasbeingusedineverydaylifebylargenumbersofMoroccans.Theproblems encounteredbylanguageplannersattemptingtoimplementArabizationprogramshaveoftenbeen attributedtothenatureoftheArabiclanguageitself,butitissuggestedherethatthegreatest obstaclesariseratherfrompeople'sattitudestowardtheirlanguages.Researchsuggeststhat MoroccanswhoknowFrenchareveryconsciousoftheadvantagestheygainfromthisbilingualism. AlthoughintheorytheytendtosympathizewiththeidealofArabization,theyarereluctantto abandonthebenefitstobederivedfromaknowledgeofFrenchunlessconvincedthatArabicis practicalenoughtocopewithalltheirtwentiethcenturyneeds. BIBLIOGRAPHY BainaA.1981.Lesystmedel'enseignementauMaroc.Casablanca:EditionsMaghrebines. BentahilaA.1983a.LanguageAttitudesAmongArabicFrenchBilingualsinMorocco.Clevedon, England:MultilingualMattersLtd. .1983b."MotivationsforCodeSwitchingAmongArabicFrenchBilingualsinMorocco." LanguageandCommunication3,No.3. .Forthcoming."LanguageAttitudesasanObstacletoArabisation."ProceedingsoftheArab SchoolonScienceandTechnology,1stFallSession.Washington,D.C.:HemispherePublishing Corp. BentahilaA.,andE.E.Davies.1983."TheSyntaxofArabicFrenchCodeSwitching."Lingua59,4. BenyakhlefM.1979."Propositionspourunearabisationdeniveau."Lamalif,No.104. BidwellR.1973.MoroccoUnderColonialRule.London:FrankCass. BlondelA.M.,andF.Dcorsire.1962."Unepossibilitd'enrichissement."Esprit,October December:78791. BloomfieldL.1933.Language.London:AllenandUnwin. BrunotL.1950.Introductionl'arabeMarocain.Paris:MaisonneuveetCie. ChristophersenP.1948.Bilingualism.London:Methuen. DieboldA.R.1961."IncipientBilingualism."Language37:97112. FergusonC.A.1959."Diglossia."Word15:32540. GellnerE.1973."Introduction."InArabsandBerbers:FromTribetoNationinNorthAfrica,ed.E. GellnerandC.Mimcaud.London:Duckworth. HoffmanB.G.1967.TheStructureofTraditionalMoroccanRuralSociety.TheHague:Mouton. LakhdarG.A.1976.Mthodologiegnraledel'arabisationdeniveau.Rabat:Instituted'Etudeset deRecherchespourl'Arabisation. LambertW.E.1977."TheEffectsofBilingualismontheIndividual:CognitiveandSociocultural Consequences."InBilingualism:Psychological,SocialandEducationalImplications,ed.P.A. Hornby.NewYork:AcademicPress. LecerfJ.1954."Esquissed'uneproblmatiquedel'arabeactuel."AfriqueetAsie26:31 46 . 342

MaraisW.1930."Lediglossiearabe."L'enseignementpublic97:401409. MarocenChiffres,Le.1976,1980,1982.Casablanca:BanqueMarocaineduCommerce Exterieur. MoatassimeA.1974."LebilinguismesauvageauMaroc."RevueduTiersMonde15:61970. MonteuilV.1960.L'arabemoderne.Paris:LibrairieC.Klincksieck. ShoubyE.1951."TheInfluenceoftheArabicLanguageonthePsychologyoftheArabs."Middle EastJournal5:284302. ZafraniH.1980.Litteraturesdialectalesetpopulariesjuivesenoccidentmusulman.Paris: Geuthner. ZartmanJ.W.1964.Morocco:ProblemsofNewPower.NewYork:AlbertonPress. 343

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 344

17 BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATIONINNIGERIA AdebisiAfolayanNigeriaisamultilingual,multicultural,andmultinationalpolity.Hence, multilingualism,oratleastbilingualism,isanecessaryconditionforthecountry'sdevelopmentand growth.ButthenatureofbilingualismrequiredfortheNigeriansociopoliticoeconomiccontextis notmatchedbythepatternsofitsbilingualeducation.ForNigeriatoachieveanoptimumlevelof development,therefore,thereshouldbeanewdirectioninitsbilingualeducationprogram.More importantly,thatnew,dynamic,anddevelopmentorientedprogrammustbeeffectivelyand efficientlyexecutedinordertoproducethedesiredgrowthanddevelopmentnotonlyofindividual Nigeriancitizensbutalsooftheentiregeopoliticalunitasasociopoliticoeconomiccommunity. MULTILINGUALISMANDMULTICULTURALISMINNIGERIA AlthoughtheexactpopulationoftheFederalRepublicofNigeriatodayisunknown,itisan indisputablefactthatthecountryismultilingualandmulticultural.Thelastcensusofthecountry wasundertakenin1963,andbecauseapoliticalinterpretationisalwaysgiventoanycensusbyits citizens,ithasnotbeenpossibletoholdanyotherreliablecensussince.Thenatureoftheethnic groupsrepresentedinthe1963censusfiguresisprovidedbyabreakdownquotedinWestAfricain August1966,asfollows: TenComponentPartsoftheNigerianPopulation 1. HausaFulani:13.6millionpeople(twodifferentintermingledethnicgroups) 2. Yoruba:13million 345

1 Ibo:7.8 Therearefortyoneminorcomponentunits. . million 2 Efik/Ibi ThetotalpopulationgivenforNigeriabythe1963censuswas55million.Sincethen, thepopulationhasincreasedtremendously,andatthesametime,moreinformation . obio: aboutthelinguisticnatureofthecountryhasalsobecomeavailable.Itisgenerally 3.2 million acceptedthatovertwohundredlanguagesarespokeninthecountry,andsomescholars 3 Kanuri: (Ikara,1984)alreadysuggestthatthelanguagesnumberoverfourhundred. . 2.9 million Fromthehistoricalpointofview,Nigeriaisamultilingual,multicultural,and 4 Tiv:1.5 multinationalpolitybroughttogetherasageopoliticalunitbytheBritishcolonial . million powerin1914.PriortotheamalgamationofthetwoProtectoratesofSouthernand 5 Ijaw:0.9 NorthernNigeriain1914,thevariouspeopleslivedasseparatesocioculturalunits . million withindifferentlyadministeredpoliticaleconomicunits.Ontheonehand,asa 6 Edo:0.9 socioculturalunit,thevariouspeopleshadtheirdifferentlanguages,butthesocio . million politicoeconomicunitswerenotinonetoonecorrespondencewiththedifferent 7 Urhobo: languages.Neitherwerethevarioussocioculturalunitsoreventhesociopolitico economicunitsofthesametexture.Thus,althoughAfricanhistorianshaveproduced . 0.6 million sufficientevidenceshowingthatitwasnottheBritishcolonialpowerthatinitiated 8 Nupe: socioeconomicinteractionsamongthevariouspeoples,itwasclearthatitwasthe Britishcolonialpowerthatbroughtallthepeopletogetherinsuccessivestagesunder . 0.5 million thesamesinglepoliticaladministration.First,itwasthepeoplearoundLagosColony andothercoastalplacesthatwerebroughttogetherunderthesameadministration;then thepeoplesintheimmediateneighboringhinterlandareas,althoughaslooserunits; andfinally,theentirecountry. Sincedifferentethnicgroupswereinvolved,historicallydifferentkindsof sociocultural,political,andadministrativepatternsoflivingcharacterizedthevarious peoples.Forexample,thesouthwesternpartofthecountrywasnotedforitsstrong organizationandmonarchicalformofgovernment.Thepoliticaladministrationwas dominatedbyobasandchiefswhowereinchargeofvariouspoliticalunits.Incontrast, thesoutheasternpartofthecountrytendedtobeprimarilyarepublic.Itwasalsonot characterizedbylargescaleorganization.Infurthercontrast,thenorthernpartofthe countryhadfallenundertheunifyingforceofIslam.ThisIslamicinfluencewas superimposeduponatraditionalmonarchicaladministrativesetup.Thus,ina 346

way,thepoliticalorganizationofthenorthandthesouthwestresembledeachother.However,the southwestandsoutheast(ortheWestandtheEast,astheywereknownpolitically)alsoresembled eachotherfromthepointofviewofreligion.Ineachofthetwoplaces,Africantraditionalreligion wasbeingreplacedbyChristianity.Thiswasunderstandableinasmuchastheseareaswereclosestto thecoastandthereforeconstitutedthefirstnaturalpointsofcontactwiththeChristianmissionaries whohadcomeintothecountrybyboatacrosstheAtlantic.Ontheotherhand,thediverseformsof traditionalAfricanreligionweremoreeasilyinfluencedandreplacedbytheChristianreligionthan Islamwas.Incontrast,thenorthernpartofthecountrywasfarthestfromthemissionary'sinitial pointsofcallinthecountry.Moreover,thepervadingIslamicreligionwasmorepowerfulin resistingtheinfluenceoftheChristianreligion. Fromtheverybeginning,therefore,therewasadisparitybetweenthewaythenorthandthesouth receivedWesternChristianinfluences.Thisdisparitywasheightenedbytheinformalityofthe Britishcolonialpolicy.TheBritishcolonialpoweralwayslikedtobeaslittleinvolvedinthelocal administrationaspossible,primarilyinordertocutdownthetotalcostsofcolonialadministration. TheBritishcolonialpower,therefore,wasinclinedtoutilizethelocalpeople'smachineryof government.Thus,ittriedtoperfectitspracticeintowhatbecameknownasthesystemofIndirect RuleorNativeAdministration.NigeriahappenedtobethepartoftheBritishcolonialempirewhere thissystemwasfinallyevolvedandmostfullyimplemented. TheBritishcolonialpower,inbringingthevariouspeoplestogetherasageopoliticalunitin1914 (andevenintheearliersuccessivestagesofamalgamatingvariouspeoplessincetheconquestof Lagosin1861anditsannexationin1863),deemeditnecessarytointroducetheEnglishlanguage intothealreadymultilingualsituationasthelinguistictoolofadministrationforNigeria.Although itiserroneoustobelieve,asmanystilldo,thatthesevariouspeoplesweretotallyuneducatedand thatitwastheChristianmissionariesandtheBritishcolonialpowerthatintroducededucationinto theirmidst,itcannotbedeniedthatthevariouspeoplesweregenerallyatthepreliteratelevelof existence.Thus,theyenjoyedtraditionalornonformaleducation.Theleveloftraditionaleducation wasimpressiveandstrong,butformaleducationtoinculcateliteracyandmodernscientificideas wasintroducedbytheChristianmissionariesandthecolonialauthorities.Ofcourse,earlieraform ofliteracyeducationhaddevelopedaroundTimbuktuandwasspreadthroughtheinfluenceof Islam.Undoubtedly,theeffectofthateducationwasthenlimitedbothinthescopeofthe curriculumandtheextentofitspatronsorclients.Inanycase,itwasthroughthatmeansthat anotherforeignlanguagewasintroducedintothearea,namely,Arabic.However,sincethe educationalprocesseswereverylimitedinscope,theinfluenceoftheArabiclanguagewasyetmore restricted.TheborrowingofArabicwordsbytheindigenouslocallanguagesoftheareaandthe survivalofmanyofthosebor 347

rowedwordsinthelanguagestodaybeareloquenttestimonytothiscontactbetweenArabicand thelocalNigerianlanguageseitherdirectlyorthroughHausa.Apartfromthoseborrowings,the influenceofArabichasbeenmoreorlessconfinedtothefieldofreligion,whereIslamhasbeen themainchannelofintroducingthelanguagetothevariousNigerianpeoples. ThedominatinginfluenceofthecolonialadministrationmadetheEnglishlanguagestandout fromotherlanguagesavailabletotheNigerianpeoples.Itwasthemostprestigious,andthe masteryofitconferredgreatsocial,political,andeconomicpoweronitsspeakers.Thus,itcould besaidthatthemanylanguagesofthetotalNigerianpopulationfelllargelyintotwogroups.The largergroupwasmadeupofallindigenouslanguagesofthepeople,andtheothergroupwas madeupofonlyEnglish.Asnotedabove,Arabichashaditsdomainonlyinreligion.Hence, bilingualismratherthanmultilingualismwasrequiredofindividualNigeriancitizensinorderto functionascompetitiveandsuccessfulmembersoftheNigeriannationfromitsinception. PATTERNSOFBILINGUALISMINNIGERIA Fromwhathasbeensaidsofar,itisclearthatthepatternofbilingualismcouldnothavebeen uniform.Therewerebothhistoricalshiftsanddifferentphasesfromthegeosocioculturalpoint ofview.Wehavealreadymentionedcertainaspectsofthehistoricalphasesofbilingualismin Nigeria,butthereareatleasttwootherimportantfeaturestonote.Thefirstismarkedbythe successivestagesofinfiltrationoftheEnglishlanguage,throughthesuccessivestagesof expansionofBritishcolonialadministration,overtheentiregeopoliticalunit.Thesecondwasthe natureofthechangesinthepatternofbilingualismthatoccurredwithineachlocationor administrativeunit. OtherImportantHistoricalFeatures Therewasalackofuniformityinthepracticeofbilingualism,particularlyasitinvolvedtheuse oftheEnglishlanguage.Understandably,Englishasaninstrumentofbilingualismwasfirst imposedandestablishedinLagosandotherplacesveryclosetothecoast.TheEnglishlanguage wasineffectfirstintroducedbytheBritishtraderstotheirNigeriancounterparts.The Portuguese,andnottheBritish,werethefirstEuropeannationtocometothewestcoastof Africa,andasimplifiedsecondarylanguageemergedfromthelanguagecontactsituation.Thus, commercialinteractionshavebeenresponsibleforthegrowthofPidginEnglish.Thiskindof secondarylanguageisnotthesameasthelanguageoftheBritishtradingvisitors,whichlater becameentrenchedamongthepeoplethrougheducationalprocesses.Thegreatestlinksbetween themareprovidedbythefactthatthesamelocalitywasimmediatelyinvolvedandthepeoples andlanguagesthathadcomeintocontact 348

inbothcommercialandeducationalsituationswerevirtuallythesame.Theearliercommercial situationwasmorecomplexintermsbothofthepeoplesandthelanguagesinvolved.Thatiswhy therearesomewordsofPortugueseorigininNigerianPidginEnglish. ThespreadoftheEnglishlanguageasthesecondlanguageavailabletothebilingualNigeria, whichbeganatthecoast,canbesaidtohaveextendedovertheentirefederationbytheActof Amalgamationofthecountryintoonepoliticalunitin1914.FromthattimeuntilNigerian independenceinOctober1,1960thatis,fortheremainingperiodofNigeriancolonialhistory distinctregionscouldberecognizedinidentifyingpatternsofbilingualism.Theseformedthe politicalbasisoftheadministrationofthecountry,andatfirsttheywerethree:East,North,and West. Akindofnorthsouthdifferentiationwasestablished.TheEastandtheWestweremostalike withregardtothepatternofbilingualism.NotonlywasEnglishusedinthetworegions,butalso adominantNigerianlanguageexistedineach.BothNigerianlanguagesbelongedtothesame Kwafamily.Thus,formostcitizens,thelinguisticproblemsoflearningandusingtheEnglish languagewerenotverydissimilarinthetworegions,andafairlysimilarkindofdialectof Englishtendedtoemergeinboth.However,thereweretwomajordifferencesbetweenthetwo regions.IntheWesternRegion,agreaterproportionofcitizenswerenativespeakersofthe dominantYorubalanguage,whereasIgbowasthedominantlanguageoftheEasternRegion.To furtheraccentuatethisdifferencebetweenthesetworegions,theminorityareaswithinthe WesternRegionwerelatercarvedoutintoafourthpoliticalregion,theMidwestRegion.Thisleft theWesternRegionmonolingualwhiletheEasternRegionremainedmultilingual,thoughwitha dominantmajoritylanguage. ThecarvingoutoftheMidwestRegionfurthercomplicatedthepatternofbilingualisminthe South,makingityetmoreunlikethepatternintheNorth.Ontheonehand,theMidwestRegion becamethemostmultilingualofalltheregions,and,inaddition,itwasthesmallest.Thus,ofall theregionsitmostfavoredthespreadanduseoftheEnglishlanguage(oritscounterpart,Pidgin English)asalinguafranca. ThesecondeventthatseparatedtheWesternRegionfromtheEasternRegionoccurredtoward theendofthecolonialera.BothregionstookadvantageoftheopportunityofferedbytheBritish colonialgovernmentforanyregionthatsodesiredtoassumesomemeasureofautonomy.In 1955,theWesternRegionembarkedonaUniversalFreePrimaryEducationScheme.Soonafter, theEasternRegionfollowed.TheWesternRegion'splansucceededandstillsurvives,butthe EasternRegionhadtoseverelymodifyitsscheme.Thus,thisdistinctionfurtherseparatedthe patternofbilingualisminthetworegions.EveryyoungcitizenoftheWesternRegion, particularlyafterthecarvingoutoftheMidwestRegion,couldembarknotonlyonbilingualism butalsoonadiglossiainvolvingthemothertongue,Yoruba,andEnglish.Incontrast,onlya percentage(althoughstillperhapsamajority)of 349

thecitizensoftheEasternRegioncouldsimilarlyembarkonbothbilingualismanddiglossia involvingIgboandEnglish.ThenumberofthosecitizensoftheEasternRegionwhocouldembark ondiglossiawasfurtherreducedbytheneedtocommunicatewithnonIgbospeakersoftheregion. ThismeantthattheEnglishlanguageservedasalanguageofeverydaycommunication,asalingua franca,amongmanycitizensoftheregion. TheMidwestRegion,theyoungestandthemostshortlivedregion,wasthemostcomplexinterms ofmultiplicityoflanguages.Ofthetenethnicgroupsearlierlistedforthecountry,three(Ijaw,Edo, Urhobo)belongtothisregion.Therefore,multilingualism,ratherthanbilingualism,wasthenormal practicethere.Everyonewouldnormallybeginbylearningandusingtheirownmothertongue. Anotherlanguage,eitheranindigenouslanguageofthewiderlocalityorPidginEnglish,was neededtocommunicatewithneighborslocatedeitherwithinthesamelocalgovernmentorthe adjoininglocalgovernment.Onceinschool,theyhadtolearntheEnglishlanguage,whichwasthe officiallanguageofgovernment.Incontrast,intherestoftheSouth,bilingualismandevena tendencytodiglossiaprevailed. TheNorthernRegionpresentsacontrastingpatterntotheSouthingeneral,andtheEastandthe WestorlaterMidwestinparticular.Twodifferentethnicgroups,theHausasandtheFulanis,hadso intermingledthattheyallvirtuallyusedtheHausalanguageastheirmothertongue.Thatdoesnot meanthatFulaniisnolongeranindependentlanguage.Ofthetenmajorethnicgroups,threeothers, besidestheHausaFulanigroupbelongtotheNorthernRegion:theKanuri,theTiv,andtheNupe. OnlytheNupesnumberedunderamillion.Theothertwoconstitutedthefifthandthesixthmost populousgroupsinthecountryabouttwoandthreemillion,respectively.Hence,althoughHausa wasamajorlanguageoftheregion,speakersofotherlanguageswithintheregionoutnumbered thosewithHausaastheirmothertongue.BecauseoftheimportanceofHausaanditsstatusasthe languageofeverydayuseasthemeansofdisseminatingandsustainingtheIslamicreligionthatwas widespreadovertheentirearea,manyspeakersoftheminoritylanguageslearnedHausaastheir secondlanguage.TheNorthandEastthereforehadsomethingincommoninrespectof bilingualism:acertainpercentageofthecitizenswerebilingualintheirmothertongueandthe majorlanguageoftheregion(IgbofortheEastandHausafortheNorth).OnlyintheMidwestern Region,particularlywhenitwaspartoftheWesternRegion,weretherebilingualswhohadtheir mothertongueandYorubaastheirtwolanguages.Themajorityofthetotalpopulationofthe WesternRegionweremonolingualratherthanbilingual.Initiallyatleast,themajorityofthecitizens inanyoftheregions,simplybecauseofthelimitationinthespreadoftheEnglishlanguageasan effectivetoolforcommunication,weremonolingualintheirmothertongues.Associopolitico economicinteractionswithineachregionstrengthenedandformaleducationalprocessesbecame moreestablished,ofthefouronlyintheWesternRegionwerethemajorityofthetotalpopulation monolinguals. 350

CurrentPatternsofBilingualism FollowingJ.Fishman(1968),wewouldliketorecognizetheambiguityintheEnglishword "nation,"andattempttoanalyzethe"successivestagesofsocioculturalintegration"takingplace withintheFederalRepublicofNigeriatoproducedifferent"stagesofnationalisms"andthe "successivestagesofpoliticogeographicalintegration"resultingindifferent"stagesofnationism." TheNigerianlanguagesweretheinstrumentsofsocioculturalintegration,whereaspoliticaland constitutionalprovisionsweretheinstrumentsofgeopoliticalintegration. ThreestagesofsocioculturalintegrationhavetakenplacewithintheFederationofNigeria: monolingualism,bilingualism,andmultilingualism.Theoverallsituationisactuallymorecomplex becauseeachstagecantakedifferentforms,andthereissomemeasureofoverlapbetweenanytwo stagesofintegration.Thissituationofoverlapiseasytoconceiveinviewofthegeneralfactthatall languagemattersareissuesof"moreorless"ratherthanof"allornone." Thefirststageofsocioculturalintegration,markedbymonolingualismmonoculturalism,takes placewithinthreedifferentsocioculturalcontextsandthreedifferentforms:primarilywithinan ethnicorsocioculturalgroup;secondarilywithinanethnicorsocioculturalgroupintowhichits immediateneighborshavebeenincorporated;andamongdifferenttypesofspeakersofthesame language(mothertongue,secondlanguage,andevenforeignlanguagespeakersofthelanguage, particularlythefirsttwo). Thefirstandprimarycontextofintegrationbasedonmonolingualismmonoculturalismwithinthe sameethnicorsocioculturalgroupisanaturalprocess,particularlywithinamultilingual community.Thatagroupofpeoplespeaksthesamelanguageandsharesotheralliedcultural featuresleadmembersofthatgrouptoactincommoninrelationtomembersofothergroups.This haslargelybeenmisconceivedinNigeriaastribalismbutshouldproperlyberegardedas nationalism.Thenegativeconnotationevokedbytheuseof"tribalism"hasitsrootsincertain feelingsofracialsuperiority.Fortheuseof"tribe"torefertoeachethnicgroupinAfricaismatched bytheuseof"nation"foreachofsuchgroupsinEurope.Thus,itiscustomarytorefertothe"Welsh nation,"the"Scottishnation,"andthe"Englishnation"withintheUnitedKingdomincontrastwith referencestothe"Yorubatribe,"the"Hausatribe,"andthe"Igbotribe"withinNigeria.Whenthe elementsofracialsuperiorityandantagonismareremoved,itisthesameorcomparableprocessof socioculturalintegrationthatresultsinthestrongfeelingsofnationalismamongtheWelsh,the Scottish,ortheEnglishwithintheUnitedKingdomandthefeelingsofnationalismamongthe Hausas,theIgbos,andtheYorubasofNigeria.Thispointneedstobeemphasized,particularly becauseofitsinevitableintermediatestatuswithinthepositivedevelopmentofanoverallfeelingof nationalismcommontoallNigeriansintheFederalRepublicofNigeriaandtowhichalllocalor component"nationalisms"aresubordinated.Likeanyotherprocessofre 351

cognizingtheindividualincontrastwithothers,this"nationalism"basedoneachethnicgroup hasitsnegativeaspectsthatmayberootedininsularity,sectionalism,andunhealthyrivalry.The "nationalism"basedoneachethnicgroup,characterizedbymonolingualismand monoculturalism,isanaturalstagewithinthesocioculturalintegrationofdifferentpeoples withinamultilingualmulticulturalpolity. Thisstageofsocioculturalintegration,basedonasinglelanguageorculture,mayoperatewithin differentgeopoliticalunitswithintheFederalRepublicofNigeria.Whenthelanguageisa minorityone,itmayjustfunctionatthevillagelevel.AmajoritylanguagesuchasHausa,Igbo, orYorubamayfunctionatthelocalgovernment,state,orevennationallevel. Whenthedomainofmonolingualismmonoculturalismisthelocalgovernment,itiscommonto findinNigeriatodaythatthepeopleinvolvedbelongtothesameethnicgroup.Sometimes, however,ifthelocalgovernmentareaitselfismultilingualwithamajoritylanguageanda satelliteofminoritylanguages,wemayhaveasituationwherethesocioculturalintegrationis foundwithinagroupcomprisingthemothertonguespeakersofthelanguageandminority groupsofsecondlanguagespeakersofthelanguage.Thissamekindofintegrationmaybefound atthestatelevel.Thefirstformoccurringwithinasingleethnicgroupwillbefoundonlywithin monolingualstatesofNigeria,suchasKano,Imo,andOyo.Thesecondform,occurringwithina grouplargerthanasingleethnicgroup,willbefoundineachmultilingualstatewithamajority languageandahostofminoritylanguages,thespeakersofwhichhavelearnedtousethe majoritylanguageasasecondlanguage. Thesecondstageofsocioculturalintegrationiseffectedbybilingualismbiculturalism.Thisstage overlapsthefirststageofsocioculturalintegration,wherebyspeakersofaminoritylanguage haveacquiredthemajoritylanguageoftheirlocalgovernmentorstateastheirsecondlanguage. Suchindividualsarenotmonolingualsbutbilinguals.Thus,inaveryrealsense,thatsituation constitutesaformofthesecondstageofsocioculturalintegration:theincorporationofamember ofaminoritygroupintothatofamajoritygroup.Theenlargedgroupisbasedononelanguage andoneculture,but,asanintegratedgroup,itpossessessomebilingualbiculturalelements. ThestatusofthemajoritylanguagewithintheentireNigerianpoliticalunitaffectsthedomainat whichitoperates.Wehavealreadymentionedthelocalgovernmentandthestatelevels.Ifthat majoritylanguageisoneofthethreemajorNigerianlanguagesrecognizedbytheNigerian Constitution(Hausa,Igbo,andYoruba),thentheintegratedgroupmayoperateatthenational level.Indeed,suchabilingualbiculturalindividualmayevenhaveanothermajorityNigerian language,insteadofaminoritylanguage(whichwehaveearlieridentified)asthemothertongue. AsanalternativetoanindigenousNigerianlanguage,theEnglishlanguagemaybethesecond languageofthebilingualbiculturalperson.Whenthathappens,thebilingualpersoncan effectivelyoperatenotonlyonlocalandstate 352

levels,butalsoonthenationallevel.Thisfactissupportedbythetworelevantprovisions, Paragraphs51and91ofTheConstitutionoftheFederalRepublicofNigeria1979: 51ThebusinessoftheNationalAssemblyshallbeconductedinEnglish,andinHausa, IboandYorubawhenadequatearrangementshavebeenmadetherefor. 91ThebusinessofaHouseofAssemblyshallbeconductedinEnglishbuttheHouse mayinadditiontoEnglishconductthebusinessoftheHouseinoneormoreother languagesspokenintheStateastheHousemaybyresolutionapprove. Thelevelofsocioculturalintegrationtendstobebothlooserandstrongerinthesecondstage involvingEnglishandanindigenousNigerianlanguagethanthatbasedontwoindigenousNigerian languages.Thatisparadoxicalbutperhapsnottoodifficulttounderstand.Normally,thissecond stageofsocioculturalintegrationisalsomarkedbysomeelementofdiglossia.Thespecializationof therolesofthetwolanguagesinvolvedinthebilingualismbiculturalismprovidesthenecessary explanation.Atthepersonalandintimateculturallevels,abilingualismbiculturalismthatisbased ontwoindigenousNigeranlanguagesisboundtobestrongerthanthatbasedonanindigenous languageandtheEnglishlanguage.Afterall,anytwoNigerianlanguagesareboundtobemore culturallyrelatedthananindigenouslanguageandtheEnglishlanguage.Ontheotherhand,when nationalandlesspersonalorofficialmattersareconcerned,theinvolvementoftheEnglishlanguage inthebilingualprocesstendstosignalastrongertiebetweenthemembersofthebilingualgroup thanthatexistingamongmembersofthegroupwhosebilingualisminvolvesjusttwoindigenous languages.Inthisconnection,whentheinvolvementoftwoindigenousNigerianlanguagesina bilingualprocessbecomesthetoolofastrongertieamongmembersofagroupintheconsideration ofnationalorofficialmatters,paradoxicallysuchastrongertieisindicativeofalooserlevelof nationalintegration.Itisindicativeofsectionalismatthenationallevel,whichmeansthatthe effectivesocioculturalintegrationhastakenplaceatthesecondstagewhichoperatesatthestate, ratherthanatthenational,level.Undoubtedly,thatstageofsocioculturalintegrationhasbeenmost effectivelyattainedinNigeriatoday. Thethirdstageofintegrationischaracterizedbymultilingualismmulticulturalism.Again,asisin thetwootherstages,thereisanoverlapbetweenthesecondandthirdstage.Wehaveseenhowthe bilingualmayalsobeabletooperateatthenationallevelinsteadofbeingrestrictedtothestate level.Wehavealsoseenhowtheintegrationpromotedbyabilingualisminvolvingtwoindigenous Nigerianlanguagescanonlybeapseudonationalone.Thismeansthatthemostusualinstrumentfor theNigeriannationalintegrationismultilingualism.Hence,foraNigeriantodayeffective socioculturalintegrationatthenationallevelwillhavetobefoundwithinagroupusingseveral languagesinorderforittobeastrongformofintegration.Theweakerformofnationalintegration isusuallymaintainedbybilingualism.Thisisbecausetheindigenous 353

languagecomponentwilltendtointroducesomeweakeningelementofsocialdisintegration throughthepromotionofsectionalinterestsofthesocioculturalgroupattachedtothatlanguage. Theexceptioniswhentheevidenceforthenationalsocioculturalintegrationisproducedbyfighting acommonnationalenemy.Otherwiseitrequiresseverallanguagesandseveralsocioculturalgroups tobeinvolvedintheconsiderationofanationalmatter,andwithoutanysuperiorpowerorbacking foranyofthelanguagesorgroups,beforeevidenceofsocioculturalintegrationatthenationallevel canbenaturallyproduced.Thuswecanconcludethattodaymultilingualismmulticulturalismisa necessaryconditionforthedevelopmentofsocioculturalintegrationattheoverallNigeriannational level. Thisnowbringsustotheconsiderationofthe"successivestagesofpoliticogeographical integration"withinNigeria,producingvarious"successivestagesofnationalism."Thisisbest discussedwithinthethreetiersystemofpoliticaladministrationexistingwithinthecountry:the localgovernment,thestategovernment,andthefederalgovernment. Thegeopoliticalstructureofthecountryprovidesaframeworkwithinwhichthepolitico geographicalintegrationcouldtakeplaceinsuccessivestages.Thisadministrativestructureis organizedatthreelevels.First,thereisthelocalgovernmentlevelwithmonolingualismand monoculturalismasitsdominantagent;atthislevelthehighestformofintegrationhastakenplace. Second,thereisthestatelevel.Ashasbeennotedearlier,priortothecreationofstates,therewere threeandlaterfourregions.Theregionalbasisofadministrationprovidedabasisforpolitico geographicalintegrationmarkedbytwocharacteristics.(1)Eachoftheregionswasdominatedby oneofthethreemainNigerianlanguages.Consequently,thepoliticogeographicalintegrationthat wasachievedtendedtobebasedonthethreemajorethnicgroupsofthecountryandthereforewas conducivetoagreatdealofunhealthyrivalrythateventuallyculminatedinthecivilwarbetween 1966and1970.(2)Theintegrationwasalsocharacterizedbytheagitationofminoritygroups.The minoritiesclaimedtheirrighttoselfdeterminationandindividualrecognition.Thus,therewasa greatdealoftensionwithinwhateverhadbeenachievedasevidenceofpoliticogeographical integration.Thistensionwas,amongothermeans,signaledbytheagitationforindependentstates forvariousminoritygroups.Thisagitation,coupledwiththeeffectsofpoliticalalignments,first resultedinthecreationoftheMidwestRegionoutoftheoldWesternRegion.Later,itresultedin thedivisionofthecountryintotwelvestatesin1966andtheestablishmentofthecurrentnineteen statestructureofthecountryin1975.OneofthemajoractivitiesoftheSecondRepublicbetween 1979and1983wastheconsiderationofcreatingmorestates.Ifthepeople'swisheshadbeenmet, thetotalnumberofstatestodaywouldbenolessthanfifty.Althoughthepresenteconomicsituation preventsanyfurtheractioninthatdirection,itseemsvalidtoconcludethatthisagitationforstates hasarisenfromthebeliefthatthestatelevelconstitutesthemostpotentforceforpolitico geographicalintegrationinthecountrytoday.Althoughthislevel 354

ofintegrationhas,ashasearlierbeendescribed,bilingualismbiculturalismasitsagentgenerally inthecountry,ithastendedtodevelopmosteffectivelyonmonolingualismand monoculturalism. Finally,thereisthefederalornationallevelofpoliticogeographicalintegration.Thislevelof integrationwhich,ashasearlierbeendescribed,thrivesbestonmultilingualism multiculturalism,seemstobetheleastdevelopedsofar. Nationalunityandnationaldivisivenesshaveinterestingcorrelationswiththeoccurrenceand utilizationofmonolingualism,bilingualism,andmultilingualisminNigeriatoday.Ontheone hand,asJoshuaFishman(1968:45)hasremarked: Thegeneralpointhereisthatdifferencesdonotneedtobedivisive.Divisivenessis anideologizedpositionanditcanmagnifyminordifferences;indeed,itcan manufacturedifferencesinlanguagesasinothermattersalmostaseasilyasitcan minimizeseeminglymajordifferencesorignorethementirely,whetherthesebein therealmoflanguage,religion,culture,race,oranyotherbasisofdifferentiation. Consciousandevenideologizedlanguagedifferencesneednotbedivisive,whetherat thenationalorattheinternationallevel.Thusthepatternofnationaldiglossiahasits internationalcounterpartsaswell. Ontheotherhand,theideologizedpositionsthataretantamounttodivisivenessandunity, respectively,arestimulated,fostered,andmaintainedbythelanguagesituationexistingwithina geopoliticoentitysuchasNigeria.Thereis,therefore,somejustificationintheprovisionsfound inParagraph8ofTheFederalRepublicofNigeriaNationalPolicyonEducation(1977): 8.Inadditiontoappreciatingtheimportanceoflanguageintheeducationalprocess, andasameansofpreservingthepeople'sculture,theGovernmentconsidersittobe intheinterestofnationalunitythateachchildshouldbeencouragedtolearnoneof thethreemajorlanguagesotherthanhisownmothertongue.Inthisconnection,the GovernmentconsidersthethreemajorlanguagesinNigeriatobeHausa,Iboand Yoruba. Undoubtedly,theassumptionbehindthatprovisionisthatthelesslinguisticallydiversifiedorthe morelinguisticallyunifiedtheFederalRepublicofNigeriacanbecome,thegreaterthelevelof unitythatcanbeattained.Thereissomemeasureofvalidityinthatassumption.Thisassumption seemstobesupportedbythepeople'swishforstatesthataremoreorlessbasedon monolingualismandmonoculturalism.Inanycase,failuretoimplementtheprovisionsofthat paragraphindicatesthemeasureofpoliticogeographicalintegrationorlackofitthathastaken placeeffectivelyinthecountryatthefederalornationallevel. BILINGUALEDUCATIONINNIGERIA ThenatureoflanguagedevelopmentandlanguageuseinNigeriahasahighdegreeofcorrelation withitslevelofsocioculturalintegrationandpolitico

355

geographicalintegration.Essentially,wehaveshownthatbilingualismbiculturalismcharacterizes theemergentNigerian.Inordertopromotebilingualismanditsimmediatesibling,diglossia, educationmustbeinvoked.Indeed,theamountofbilingualismanddiglossianowfoundinthe countryistheproductofeducation.Moreover,itseemsinevitablethateducationshouldbe effectivelyandefficientlybilingualbiculturalandevenmultilingualmulticulturaliftherequired levelofsocioculturalandpoliticalintegrationistobeattained.Inthatconnection,wehavealready shownthatmultilingualismmulticulturalismisrequiredforthehighestlevelofsociocultural integrationandpoliticogeographicalintegrationatthenationalorfederallevel.Wehavealsoshown thatbilingualismbiculturalismcouldeffectivelyoperateatthenationallevelasanalternative. Thecurrenteducationalsystemisnotsufficientlyandefficientlybilingualbicultural,letalonebeing multilingualmulticultural.Ashasbeenshown,effectiveparticipationatthenationallevelrequires bilingualismbiculturalismbasedontheindividualNigeriancitizen'smothertongueandtheEnglish language.TheefficacyofbilingualismbiculturalismbasedontheindividualNigerian'smother tongueandanothermajorityNigerianlanguagehastoawaittheemergenceandmassacceptanceof anindigenousNigerianlanguageastheofficialandnationallanguagesofthecountry. Unfortunately,theindigenousNigerianlanguageshavebeenlargelyneglected,andtheEnglish languagehasbeenbothunderratedandoverrated.Theindividualcitizen'smothertongueoughtto bethebasisforfullprimaryeducationifpermanentliteracyandpermanentnumeracyaretobethe minimalgoalsofprimaryeducation.TheNationalPolicydemandsthosegoals,andtheyseemtobe reasonableandvaliddemands. Recenteventshaveindicatedthatprimaryeducationwillforsometimeatleastremaintheonlylevel offormaleducationthatcanbemadeavailabletoallcitizensofNigeria.In1976,thefederal governmentembarkedonaUniversalFreePrimaryEducationSchemefortheentirenation.Primary educationisnotyetuniversalorcompulsoryforallchildreninthenationbecausetherampant worldwideeconomicregressionhasmadeitimpracticable.Indeed,theeconomicsituationisforcing aconsiderablereductionorshrinkingofopportunitiesforsecondaryandtertiarylevelsofeducation. Ithasthereforebecomeincreasinglyimportantthatprimaryeducationbeeffective.Ithasalso becomeincreasinglyclearthatthelackofadequateemphasisontheutilizationoftheindividual citizen'smothertonguesforprimaryeducationsignalstheineffectivenessofcurrentprimary education. Similarly,theEnglishlanguagehasnotbeenmadetoplayitsproperrolewithintheeducational system.Ashasbeenshownelsewhere(Afolayan,1984),besidestheenigmaticprocessofboth underratingandoverratingit,therehasalsobeenagameofselfdeceptionbehindtheutilizationof Englishwithintheeducationalsystemofthecountry.TheeffectiveuseofEnglishasthemediumof primaryeducationisfalselyassumedtohavebeenachieved.Atthesecondaryschoollevel,the specializedsubjectareasareoveremphasizedattheexpenseoftheEnglishlanguagemedium,which hasbeensodeemphasizedthatwhatpasses 356

forsecondaryeducationisgenerallymerememorizationandregurgitationofnotes.Atthe tertiarylevelofeducation,thelevelofEnglishrequiredisalsounderrated,whileatthesametime thecorrespondingamountofEnglishalreadyacquiredbythestudentsisoverrated. Consequently,thelevelofbilingualbiculturaleducationgiveninthecountryisineffectiveand inadequate,beingincapableofinculcatingintherecipientsapositiveselfimage,originalityof thought,orindependentinitiativeinaction. IfNigeriaistohaveaneducationalprogramthatismaximallydevelopmentoriented,bilingual biculturaleducationmustbereorganized.Similarly,multilingualismbiculturalismwillhavetobe effectivelypromotedinordertofosterandmaximizethenation'slevelofsociocultural integrationandpoliticogeographicalintegration.Inadditiontomakingadequateprovisionsfor theuseoftheindividualcitizens'mothertonguesandtheEnglishlanguageinallformsand levelsofeducation,therewillalsobetheneedtoimplementthetypeofprovisionsfoundin Paragraph8ofthecurrentNationalPolicy.Thismeansthat,forexample,withinthenew634 systemofeducationenvisagedforthecountry,thefirstsixyearsofprimaryeducationwillhave thechild'smothertongueasthemediumandboththemothertongueandtheEnglishlanguageas subjects;thefirstthreeyearsofsecondaryeducationwillhavethechild'smothertongue,oneof thethreeNigerianmajorlanguages(Hausa,Igbo,andYoruba)andEnglishassubjectsandalso Englishasitsmedium;andthelastthreeyearsofsecondaryeducation,aswellasthesubsequent tertiaryeducation,willhaveatleastEnglishasasubjectandasamedium,andtheother languages(thestudent'smothertongueandanyotherNigerianlanguages)maythenbestudied optionallyorastheneedarises. Atthesametime,itshouldbepossibleforcontinuingeducationprogramstoexistvigorouslyfor thosewhoseformaleducationhasterminatedattheprimarylevel.Insuchanevent,theirmother tonguesshouldbethenecessarytoolsforsuchlifelongeducationalprocesses.Resources,such asspecializedbooks,shouldthereforebemadeavailabletoensurethesuccessofsuchprograms. Similarly,theexecutionofmassliteracyprogramsandthemaintenanceofeffectivenonformal educationatalllevelsshouldbebasedonindigenousNigerianlanguages.Inaddition,informal educationalprogramsandfacilitiesshouldbeprovidedinNigerianlanguagesaswellasinthe Englishlanguage.WhenallthelanguagesinNigeriahavebeenproperlyutilizedintheir appropriatelyspecializedroles,allformsofeducation(formal,informal,andnonformal)atall levels(fundamental,secondary,andtertiaryorelementary,intermediate,andadvanced)canbe fullyharnessedforthedevelopmentofindividualcitizensandthecountryasawhole.Itisthen thatmaximumsocioculturalintegrationandpoliticogeographicalintegrationwillbeattainedin thecountryandthatatrue"unityindiversity"modelofbilingualbiculturaleducation (Afolayan,1978)willbefoundtobeinefficientoperationinNigeria. Certaindifficultiesnowstandinthewayofsuccessfulimplementationofabilingualeducational program.TheindigenousNigerianlanguagesareyettobe 357

reducedintowriting.Moreover,technicaltermsandnecessarymetalanguageforusein educationalandnoneducationalformalcontextsareyettobeavailableforvirtuallyallofthem. Notonlytextbooksandotherinstructionalmaterials,butalsotheteachersrequiredforvarious formsandlevelsofeducationinthelanguagesorthroughtheirmediaareyettobeproducedboth qualitativelyandquantitatively.Suchaprogramistooexpensive,particularlyassomany languagesareinvolved.Itisnotjustthattheentirecountryismultilingualmulticultural,butthat certainstates,manylocalities,andevenanappreciablenumberofcosmopolitancentersare extremelydiversifiedlinguisticallyandculturally.Aboveall,thereisnorallyingnational ideology;consequently,thepoliticalwilltolaunchandimplementsuchaprogramislacking. Fortunately,alloftheseproblemsaresurmountableandonceitisfullyrealizedthatsucha programholdsthekeytofuturesocial,political,intellectual,scientific,andtechnological development,andthegrowthandprogressofthemodernNigeriannation,thenecessary machinerycanbesetinmotion.Therequirednationalideologycanbeadoptedandbackedby thenecessarypoliticalwill.ThentheNigeriannationcanachievethebilingualeducational programtoattainthedesireddevelopmentandgrowthinthispresentdayscientificand technologicalage. BIBLIOGRAPHY AfolayanA.1978."TowardsanAdequateTheoryofBilingualEducationforAfrica."In InternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation,ed.J.E.Alatis.Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity,RoundTableonLanguagesandLinguistics1978. .1984."TheEnglishLanguageinNigerianEducationasanAgentofProperMultilingual andMulticulturalDevelopment."JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment5:1. TheConstitutionoftheFederalRepublicofNigeria.1979.Lagos:FederalMinistryof Information. TheFederalRepublicofNigeriaNationalPolicyonEducation.1977.Lagos:FederalMinistryof Information. FishmanJ.1968."NationalityNationalismandNationNationism."InLanguageProblemsof DevelopingNations,ed.J.A.Fishman,C.A.Ferguson,andJ.D.Gupta. IkaraB.1984."EnglishasaCommunicativeMediumandaCulturalDilemmainNigeria."A keynoteaddressdeliveredattheConferenceonEnglishStudiesinHigherEducationinNigeria, BayeroUniversity,Kano,September2428,1984. 358

18GraziellaCorvalnBILINGUALISMINPARAGUAY THENATIONALLINGUISTICCOMMUNITY Inrecentyears,thetraditionalperspectivefromwhichthestudyofbilingualisminParaguaywas approachedhasbeensignificantlybroadenedandenhanced.Thisconcernhasmanifesteditselfas anefforttoaffirmthevalueofbilingualismasadistinctiveelementofthenationand,hence,asa significantfactorinitsunityandsurvival. ThepersistentglorificationofGuarani,whichincertainhistoricalmomentspreparedthewayfor aconfrontationwithtendenciesrestrictingtheuseofthenativelanguage,hasgeneratedaseries ofmaterials,documents,andstudiesofvaryingworthandscopethatpermitustoappraisethe strengthofthiseffort.Thistaskwasfundamentallysustainedthroughtheuseofthenative languageasisusuallythecaseamongfolkloristsratherthanthroughanintegralanddynamic perceptionofthebilingualprocessitself.Todaythisprocessisconceptualizedasanexpression ofthemergingoftwosocietiesasacomprehensivehistoricalphenomenon. Thischapterwillattemptasystematicandevaluativeoverviewofthetraditionallyrecognized aspectsofParaguayanbilingualism.Inaddition,itwillofferacritical,contemporaryperspective fromwhichwemayassessboththeimplicationsofthetwocontactlanguagesforformal educationandthesociolinguisticattitudesofParaguayanstowardthissituation. EthnicGroupsandLinguisticFamilies Withinthenationallinguisticcommunity,SpanishandGuaraniarethetwolanguagespar excellence.However,otherlanguagesexistinthecountry,spoken ____________________ TranslatedfromSpanishbyLeePuigAntich. 359

toalesserextentbysmallbutdiverseindigenousgroupsstillremaining.Comprising10percentof thetotalParaguayanpopulation,thesegroupsarelocatedinareassomewhatdistantfromurban centersandhavelimitedinteractionwithparaguayos,atermusedtoindicatenonIndians. InordertodescribetheParaguayanlinguisticsituationaspreciselyaspossible,wewillreproduce thedatafurnishedbythefirstCensoyEstudiodelaPoblacinIndigenadelParaguay(Censusand StudyoftheIndigenousPopulationofParaguay),takenin1981byParaguayanInstituteforIndian StudiesandtheBureauofStatisticsandtheCensus. Owingtoitsterritorialrangeandfunction,Guaraniisthemostimportantalthoughnottheonly languageoftheseventeenindigenoustribesthatmakeuptheethnicconfigurationofParaguay. Theselanguagescanbeclassifiedintofivelinguisticfamilies. TupiGuaraniLinquisticFamily.ThisfamilyisrepresentedintheChacoregionbytheGuarayos andTapiete,andintheEasternRegionbythePaiTavytera,andAcheGuayaki.Todaythemembers ofalltheseethnicgroups,exceptfortheAche,speakParaguayanGuarani.However,theyhave retainedtheirownvocabulary,whichtheyuseamongthemselveswhenoutsidersarenotpresent. Stillunavailablearereliablestudiesthatwouldclarifytherelationshipsamongthedifferentdialects ofGuaraniusedbyindigenousgroups.Norisitcleartowhatextentthesedialectshavefalleninto disuse. ThemarkedculturalandlinguisticdifferencesamongtheAcheGuaranihaveconvincedsome scholarsthattheydonotbelongtotheTupiGuaranistockbuthavesimplyadoptedmanyGuarani lexicalitems.Nevertheless,themostrecentinformationavailablesuggestsacloserelationship betweentheAchelanguageandthetraditionalGuaranioftheChiripa. ZamucoLinguisticFamily.ThisfamilyisrepresentedbytheMoroisAyoreosandtheChamacocos, ethnicgroupslocatedinthenortheasternpartoftheChaco.Thetwolanguagesaremutually unintelligible,anddialectaldifferencesarefoundwithineachgroup.Thesedifferencesareminimal inAyoreo;however,concerningChamacoco,theriverIndians(fromFuerteOlimpoandPuerto Diana)considerthedialectoftheTomaraxa(thegroupfromtheinterior)tobepurerthantheirown, whichincludeswordsfromGuaraniandSpanish. MatacoMataguayoLinguisticFamily.InParaguay,thisfamilyisrepresentedbytheChulupi(or Nivacle),theMak'a,andtheManjuy,andinArgentinaandBoliviabytheMataco.Theethnic groupshavedistinctlanguages,andChulupiandManjuypossessvariousdialects. WithrespecttothepeoplereferredtohereastheManjuy,thereexistssomeuncertaintyasto whethertheycompriseasingleethnicgroupandwhattheirrelationshiptotheChorotiofArgentina is.ChaseSardi(1972)referstotwoethnicgroupstheManjuyandtheEklenjuy.(Theinformation andtermswereprovidedbyChulupiinformants.) TwolargeethnicanddialectaldivisionsoftheChorotimaybeidentified.Thefirst,theYojwaha, livealongriversandaredividedintothreesubgroupsthe 360

Nootiniwk,IkiowejThiele,andIsiemThele.TodaytheyarefoundinArgentinaorBolivia. AccordingtoCiriacoPerezandWalterFlores(Nivacleinformants),theChulupicallthisgroup Eklenjuy.Theseconddivision,thegroupdesignatedasManjuybytheChoroti,referstoitselfas Jobwjwa;thesearethe"Montaraces"Choroti.TheyaredividedintotwosubgroupstheThlawaa ThleleandtheWikinaWosbothlocatedintheParaguayanChaco. GuaicuruLinguisticFamily.InParaguay,thisfamilyisrepresentedsolelybythosereferredtohere as"TobaQom,"asubgroupoftheTobaandPilaga,whichextendsfromtheArgentineChacoto Bolivia.TheTobaQomofParaguayspeaktheirowndialectbuthavenodifficultyunderstanding theArgentinedialects.Apparently,theirlanguageisalsointelligibletotheCaduveos(Mbaya)ofthe BrazilianMatoGrossoregion.Someauthors(Susnik,1965;ChaseSardi,1972)asserttheexistence ofaTobaLenguagroupwhichdesignatesitself"Emok"andwhichischaracterizedbyToba (Guaicuru)andLenguabilingualism.However,inspiteofTobaLenguamarriages,fewpeople currentlyspeakLenguainthemaincommunityofCerrito.Similarly,thetermEmokisunknownas aselfdesignation,andsomebelievethatthiswordcomesfromMak'a. ItmustbementionedthatthetermTobaQomislikewisenotincommonuseandissimply composedoftheusualtermTobaandtheselfdesignationQominordertodistinguishitfromthe "TobaMaskoy,"whoselanguagebelongstotheMaskoylinguisticfamily. LenguaMaskoyLinguisticFamily.ThislinguisticfamilyiscomprisedoftheLengua,Angaite, Sanapana,Guana,andTobaMaskoypeoples.TheLenguaconstitutethelargestethnicgroupinthe country(atotalof8,121werecounted)andaredividedintoatleasttwodistinctsubgroupswiththeir owndialects. Theotherethnicgroupsinthislinguisticfamilyhavelanguages,whichtoacertainextentare mutuallyintelligibleandmaythereforebeclassifiedasdialectsofLengua.Allofthesegroupsrefer tothemselvesasEnlhitorEnenlhit,andprobablywereterritorialgroupsoftheLenguawhichsplit offrelativelyrecently. TheIndiansbelongingtotheseethnicgroupsareamongthemostdeculturedinthecountry(owing, aboveall,totheirlonghistoryoflaborintheworkshopsandfactoriesofthetanningindustry).In manycases,theyhaveabandonedtheirlanguageinfavorofParaguayanGuarani.Thetanning industryistheoldestindustrysituatedintheParaguayanChacoandoperatedbyArgentine landowners. Eachethnicgroupgenerallyhasitsowntermwithwhichitdesignatesitselfanditsmembers.This termcanalmostalwaysbetranslatedas"gente"[people]or"hombre"[man],sinceinthelifeof traditionalculturesallovertheworld,theconceptsof"ethnicgroup"and"people"arethesame.As apointofreference,theideaofbelongingtoanethnicgroupreceivesmuchlessemphasisamong indigenouspeoplethanthatofbelongingtoalocalorterritorialgroup.Thelatterrepresentsthe sociopoliticalunitofhighestorder,anditisdifficulttoaskIndianstowhichethnicgroupthey belongwithoutresortingtosuchSpanishwordsasetnia,nacion,raza,tribu[ethnicgroup,nation, race,tribe,respec 361

tively],andsoon.Accordingtothecontextofthesituation,someoftheselfdesignationsmaymean "varon"[male].TheChulupi,forexample,callthemselves"Nivacle,"atermcontrastingwith "Samto"(ParaguayanorArgentinecriollo),"Ele"(gringo)[foreigner],orthenamesoftheother ethnicgroupswhichtheyknow(theManjuy,Ja'nono,Guarayos,Juutshinaj,Toba,etc.).Inanother context,however,"Nivacle"means"varon"andcontrastswith"Navatch'e,"meaning"mujer" [woman].Similarly,theAyoreorefertothemselvesas"Ayoreode"(pl.),whichinonecontext contrastswith"cojone"("whites"andmembersofotherethnicgroups)andinanother,with "Ayoredie"(mujeres)women. TodaythereareIndianswhodenythatthesetermsreferexclusivelytomembersoftheirowngroup andthinkthatthetranslationshouldbe"indigena"[Indian,native]or"gente."Amongsome indigenousgroups,theterm"gente"isusedonlyinreferencetoIndians,ausageadoptedfromthe Paraguayanpopulation,whichusesthewordexclusivelyfornonIndians.TheChamacocosof PuertoDianainsistthattheword"Ishior"includestheSanapanasandotherneighboringgroupsas wellasmembersoftheirowngroup.Likewise,someTobasassertthat"QomLyk"mayindicateany "cristiano"[Christian]. Thedialectaldifferencesgiverisetorathercuriouslinguisticsituations.Forexample,intheEmok tribethemasculineandsociallanguageisToba,whereas,thelanguageusedamongwomenis Lengua.Notallofthesetribesformerlyspokethepresentlanguage.Somebelongedtoother linguisticfamilies,andothersadoptedGuarani;stillothersmaintainasasecretlanguagethe languagetheyusedpriortoadoptingthepresentone(ChaseSardi,1972).Mostofthesedialectsare intheprocessofextinctionsincetheyarereducedtotheirrespectiveindigenouscores,whichare decreasinginnumber. Insomecommunities,forexample,Cerrito,homeoftheEmokToba,Toba/Guarani/Spanish trilingualismisfound.Todealwiththissituation,Guaranihasbeenadoptedasamediumof instructionfororalcommunication.AllofthedocumentspresentedcontainrequeststotheMinistry ofEducationtoimplementeducationalplansthataddressthelinguisticproblemaspartofan ongoingprocess. AlthoughParaguayhasneverbeencharacterizedbymassivewavesofimmigration,thereare presentlysignificantcommunitiesofforeignerswhohaveretainedtheirnativelanguageinvarying degrees.ThelargestofthesearetheMennonite,German,Japanese,andKorean.However,except amongMennonites,Spanishisalreadythepredominantlanguageamongfirstgenerationspeakers. InruralJapanesesettlements,theuseofGuaraniasasecondlanguagepredominates. OfrecentconcerninParaguayistheexpansionofPortugueseinareasborderingonBrazil.Because oflargehydroelectricprojectsandapenetratingBrazilianpoliticalpresence,Paraguayseesits "culturalindependence"threatenedbytheprocessofculturalassimilationinitiatedbyBrazil. AccordingtotheCensoNacionaldeProblacionyVivienda(NationalCensus) 362

ofPopulationandHouseholds),the1982percentagesofSpanishandGuaranispeakerswere distributedasfollows: Paraguay Guarani only Spanishand Guarani Spanish only

Rural 60.08 30.91 5.39 Urban 15.00 70.21 12.50 Total 40.10 48.16 6.43 Thedataindicatethat88.26percentofthetotalpopulationofthecountryspeakGuarani.Although otherlanguagesspokeninParaguayarenotincludedhere,itisevidentthatthesefiguresare significantforanappreciationoftheextentofSpanish/GuaranibilingualisminParaguaytoday. GUARANIINTHECULTURALPROCESSOFPARAGUAY "Mestizaje"andBilingualism ThearrivaloftheconquistadorsledtoconstantandintenseinteractionbetweentheSpanishandthe aboriginalsand,hence,betweentheirrespectivelanguages,SpanishandGuarani.BecauseParaguay neverhadamassiveinfluxofeitherSpaniardsorotherimmigrants,iteventuallydevelopedintoan isolatedsocioculturalmilieu,givingrisetothebirthofatypeofbilingualismwhichdevelopedand expandedthroughoutnearlyfourcenturiesofindependentnationallife.Itispreciselythispoint whichhelpsexplainthesocial,cultural,andlinguisticdifferencesbetweenParaguayandtheother LatinAmericancountries. Manyfeaturesboreuponthefusionofthetwolanguagesandcultures.TheSpaniardsneededthe aboriginallanguagefortheirrelationshipswiththeIndians,afactthatwasreinforcedbytheunion betweenSpaniardsandnativewomeninanunattractivegeographicarea.Thisunusualtypeof polygamywasencouragedandincreasedastheSpaniardsgainedpowerovertheIndian.The absenceofpreciousmetalsledtoaruraleconomybasedoncattle,whichwassustainedbythe nativewomen.Thesewomen,workingcheaplyandingreatnumbers,constitutedthemostimportant forceinproductivelabor.TheeconomicvalueattachedtothepossessionofIndianswascompared totheworthofAndeansilverandgold.Thus,onereads,"Atthebeginningthewealthofthesettlers wasmeasuredbythenumberofIndianstheyheldinencomiendaorinservitude"[Translatedfrom Moreno,1959].Theaboriginalwomanbecamenotonlythemostimportantelementintheincipient andprecariouseconomyoftheSpaniards,butalsothebaseonwhichthepowerfulandrapidprocess ofmestizajewasfounded. PerhapsthemostimportantfactorinthehistoryofParaguayanbilingualismwasthemissionary workoftheSocietyofJesus. 363

InParaguaytherebegananaudaciousexperimentingovernmenterectedonatheocraticbase whichwasunlikeanytheworldhadknownbeforeandwhichwouldendureuntiltheexpulsionof theOrderin1767.FormorethanacenturyandahalftheJesuitfathersruledthevastGuarani collectivityentrustedtotheircareforpurposesofevangelizationandsocial,politicalandeconomic organization,accordingtocanonswhichdifferedradicallyfromthosewhichregulatedlifeinthe restoftheprovince....TheJesuitsimposedrigid,strictandminuteregulationsuponthelivesof theGuaraniIndians,unlikeanyknownbyotheraboriginalnations.[TranslatedfromCardozo,1959] Languagewasthemostimportantfactorduringthisperiodofacculturation,sincetheJesuits requiredtheuseofSpanish.Spanishwastheindispensablerheansofsociopoliticalaffirmation, whereasGuaraniwasassociatedwiththreeconditions:culturalisolation,conservatisminnonnsof conduct,andsociallimitation.Inthecolonialperiod,thissociolinguisticsettingwasidentifiedwith Indian,mestizo,andcriollopoverty,creatingtheawarenessofa"distinctiveintimacy"[Translated fromSusnik,1965]. TheinfluenceoftheJesuitFathersandtheirintenseeducationallaborsenrichedtheGuarani languageatthesametimethatSpanishwasbeingtaughttotheIndians.In1624,theJesuitpriest, AntonioRuizdeMontoya,producedthefirstGuaranidictionaryandgrammar.Thus,Guarani, whichforsolonghadbeenonlyoral,cametobeawrittenlanguage. TheintellectualtrainingoftheJesuits,togetherwiththedesiretoproselytize,formedthebasisfor theimportantliterary,educational,andreligiousoutput,whichwouldappearandlaterincrease. Mostoftheliteratureconsistedofinstructionaltexts,books,andreligiousmaterialstranslatedinto Guaraniandusedprimarilyforreligiousinstruction.Ofthenumerouslinguistsbelongingtothe Order,FatherRuizdeMontoyaproducedthemostimportantbasicworksonthenativelanguage. TheattempttostandardizeGuaraniusingsomeofhisworksasabasisbeganin1722withthe publicationofVocabulariodelaLenguaGuarani(256pp.).Thiswasfollowedbyotherworks, notably,LaGramaticadelIdiomaGuaranibyFrayJuanN.Alegresoandofparticularinterestto contemporaryreadersGramaticaGuarani,publishedbyFatherAntonioGuaschin1959. Publicationinthenativelanguageceasedin1730.Inadditiontomoreimportantworks,"sketches, primersandcatechismsforelementaryinstruction,'treatises'inSpanishandGuarani,andseven worksonastronomy,meteorology,calendarsandastronomicaltablesby"werepublished[Translated fromKostianovsky,1975].WiththeexpulsionoftheJesuitsin1767,theproductionanddiffusionof writtenworksinthenativelanguagefellintoalethargythatwouldlastalongtime. ThealmostnaturalisolationofthecountryincreasedconsiderablywiththerisetopowerofDr. GasparRodriguezdeFrancia.Inspiteofcreatingenormousobstaclestopolitical,social,and economicdevelopment,thisregimestrengthenedtheeverincreasingcontactbetweenthetwo cultureswiththeirrespectivelanguages,values,andattitudes."IsolationunderFranciahalted immigration 364

andeconomicdevelopment,obstructedchannelsofcommunication,andclosedthedoortocapital andtechnology;butsocially,itcontributedtothehomogenizationofthepopulation"[Translated fromBenitez,1955].Duringthisperiod,thecountryreturnedtotheisolationistspiritthathad prevailedinthetimeofthemissionaries.Externalcontactandinfluencewerereducedtoa minimum;mistrustofthingsforeignwascreated;andfamilylifeandsocialrelationswere permeatedbysecretivenessunderFrancia'sadministration. Fromthenon,thebilingualprocessproceededslowlyeventhoughthegovernmentsthatsucceeded Dr.FranciatriedtoencourageeducationinSpanish.Existinghistoricaldocumentsshowamarked rejectionoftheuseofGuaraniineducationalinstitutionsandinmiddleandupperclasssocial circles.Thus,ParaguaybackedCarlosAntonioLopezinanintensivecampaignforSpanishliteracy andmasseducation.WiththeabolitionofIndiantowns,thesubsequentconversionofindigenous surnamestoSpanish,andthehiringofprofessionalteachersandtechniciansfromabroad,the Spanishlanguagebeganamajorexpansion(A.N.A.,S.H.,1848). TheWaroftheTripleAlliance(186570)broketheincreasingexpansionismofthelanguageandof allelsethatwasSpanish."Thecollectiveopinionwasimpressedonceagainbythevalueswhich boreonthesituationandwhichwereinessencepartoftheoriginalhistoricalstratumthe impulsivity,aggressivityandtelluricwisdomoftheIndian;theirreductibility"[TranslatedfromPla 1970].Intheneedtomobilizethesentimentsofthepeopleduringthegreatstruggle,Guarani reappearedwithgreaterstrengththanbefore.Theseemotionswereexpressedintheperiodicalsof thetrenchesElCabichi,ElCentinela,andElCaciqueLabmarewhichcarriedsectionsinGuarani andSpanishandpublishedverseandrudimentaryprose.In1867,MarshalLopezorderedthe unificationofthespellingsystem. Aftersuchabloodywar,whichresultedindominationbytheneighboringcountriesandinthe reductionofthepopulationtowomenandchildren,thepredominantculturalenvironmentbecame virtuallySpanish.SometimelaterthereappearedsomeintellectualswhodefendedtheGuarani languagewiththefervorthatspringsfromintuitiveknowledgeoftherolesplayedbyeachofthe languages.In1911,anauthorwrotethattoGuarani havebeenattributedthedullingoftheintellectualapparatusandthedifficulty seeminglyexperiencedbythemassesinadaptingthemselvestoEuropeanmethodsof labor.Theargumentcommonlypresentedisthatforeverylanguage,thereisamentality whichsotospeakdefinesandportraysitselfinthatlanguage;andsinceGuaraniisso radicallydifferentfromSpanishandotherAryanlanguages,notonlyinlexicon...but alsointheveryconstructionofwordsandsentences,theremustexist,therefore,serious obstaclestotheworkofcivilizationinParaguay.Theremedyisobvious:killGuarani. Attackingthelanguage,onehopestomodifytheintelligence;teachingEuropean grammartothepeople,onehopestoEuropeanizethem....Theeconomyisinvoked andSpanishwillbeadopted,eachoneforitspurpose."[TranslatedfromBarret,1943] 365

WiththeChacoWar(193235)cametheemergenceprimarilyforpoliticalreasonsofaclear conceptionofGuaraniasasymbolofnationality.However,itsuseneveracquiredpopularityor prestigeinsomesocialcirclesinAsuncin,owingtoa"conviction"thattheuseofGuaranierected aninsurmountablebarrieragainsttheproperlearningofSpanish.Nevertheless,thisreappraisalof thenativelanguagehasgainedadherentsinthelasttwodecadesthroughpublicandprivate initiativesandespeciallythroughthegovernment'sdecisiontorequiretheteachingofGuaraniatall levelsofeducation. HistoricalreportsontheuseofGuaraniinthesocialandpoliticalsphereshavebeentheobjectof muchreflectiononthepartofhistoriansandpojiticans.J.Pla(1970:7)remindsusthatpartisan manifestosarewritteninSpanish,butspeechesmadeintimesofemergencyaredeliveredin Guarani.Inperiodsofculturalexpansion,Spanishadvances;inperiodsofupheaval,Guarani returns.Emotionseeksthevernacularroute;theintellectseekstheHispanicone. LanguageandEducation TheHighSchoolfortheHumanities,foundedin1944,wasthefirstinstitutiontoincorporatethe teachingofGuaraniintoitscurriculum.Fouryearslater,thisschoolwasconvertedintotheFaculty ofPhilosophyandLettersoftheNationalUniversityofAsuncin,whereProfessorDecoudLarrosa beganthearduoustaskofpromotingtheaboriginallanguageandincorporatingitintouniversity teaching.TheseeffortsweredirectedtowardprovidinguniversitytrainingforGuaraniteachersin ordertopreparethemforprimaryandsecondaryteaching. Beforetheseteacherscouldbehired,theMinistryofEducationneededtoincorporateGuaraniinto theeducationalcurriculum.In1971,intheconclusionsofnewstudiesbythePlanningCommittee forSecondaryEducation,provisionwasmadefortheadditionoftwohoursofGuaraniinstruction perweektothethreeyearsequenceoftheBasicCurriculum.In1961,theInstituteofGuarani Linguisticswascreated.Oneofitspurposesistoeducateandtrainteachersinshortcoursesoffered atintervals.In1972,theInstituteforAdvancedLanguageoftheNationalUniversityofAsunci6n establishedtheuniversitydegreeinGuarani,therebygrantinguniversitystatustothestudyofthe aboriginallanguage.Thisgavegreaterimpetustotheprocessofstandardizationbegunintheearly 1960s. Thefastgrowingawarenessofthevalueandroleofthenativelanguagewasreinforcedbytelevision andradioprogramsinGuarani,religioussermons,andthepopularmassesinGuarani,aswellasby journalism.Ingeneral,asocioculturalenvironmenthasbeenevolvinginwhichthecontact languagesareacquiringafunctionalnicheoftheirown.However,thiscomplementarydistribution inusageisstillunrecognizedbymanyoftheirspeakersandevenbyscholars. 366

TheBilingualSituationinParaguayToday ThealmostcompletelackofknowledgeabouttheParaguayansociolinguisticsituationhas promptedvariousforeignscholarsofvaryingreputetodeveloptheoreticalframesofreference thatdonotaccuratelyreflectactualconditions.Todayasinthepast,itiscommonforlinguists andsociolinguiststoanalyzeand,evenworse,togeneralizefromfindingsafternomorethana twoweekstayinthecountry.Ontheotherhand,itisalsotruethatforanumberofreasonsthat cannotbedealtwithherelittleresearchhasbeencarriedoutwithinthecountry.Inthemid 1970s,amarkedinterestinbilingualresearchdevelopedamongParaguayanscholars,which resultedinanumberofpublicationshi,reandabroad(Corvalnetal.,1982).Theremainderof thischapterwilltreattheimplicationsofbilingualismandtheformalsystemofeducationforthe contemporaryera,aswellasthepresentattitudesoftheParaguayanpeopletowardtheir languagesSpanishastheofficiallanguage,andGuaraniasthenationallanguage(asprovided bytheNationalConstitutionof1967). TherootsoftheParaguayanlinguisticsituationlieintheexistenceofanindigenouslanguage, Guarani,whichcompetedopenlywithastandardEuropeanlanguage,Spanish,andwhich achievedastatusequaltoSpanishinsteadofbeingeliminated(aswasthecaseinmostofthe otherLatinAmericancountries)(Corvaln,1977). TodayParaguayanbilingualismreflects"culturalduality."Giventhatthelinguisticsituation reflectsthemergerofthecultureoftheconquistadorswiththatoftheGuaraniIndians,itwould appearthatowingtothelongpassageoftimesincecolonization,"culturalduality"isnow representedbythetwomajorpopulationdistributionsurbanandruralandnotbythetraditional white/Indiandichotomy.Otherfactorscontributingtothisparticularculturaldualityare:(1)the extremelyhomogeneoussocial,geographic,andclimaticcharacteristicsofParaguay;(2)the uniformracialtraits;and(3)fluidboundariesinthedistributionofsocioeconomicstrata. IthasbeenfrequentlyrepeatedthattheroleofthevernacularinParaguayisintimatelyrelatedto thewellknowndichotomybetween"powerandsolidarity"(Rubin,1968)inallsectorsofthe nationalsociety.Thistheoreticalperspectiveappliestotheruralareas,whereasinurbancenters itmustberelatedtotheconceptof"nationalidentity"(Corvalnetal.,1982). Oncethetransitionfromthe"folk"languagetotheurbanlanguageGuaranitoSpanishhas beencompletedandthebilingualprocesshasbegun,thenativelanguagechangesitsroleinthe urbansector:itbecomessymbolicofthecountryandtheobjectofincreasingloyalty.The positiontakenhereisthatfactorssuchastheexpandingawarenessoftheculturalvalueof bilingualism,agreateruseofGuaranioutsidethefamily,andtheuniquenessofthenational scopeofthebilingualsituationhavecontributedtoParaguayanpride.Thisisseenmostclearly amongbilingualsand,hence,amongtheurbanpopulation. 367

TheOutlookforParaguayanBilingualism AlthoughpublicandprivateinitiativeshavegivengreatimpetustothestudyanduseofGuarani, theyhavenotbeensufficienttoproducecoordinatebilingualsinurbanareas.Norhavetheydoneso inruraldistrictswhereSpanishisinfrequentlyusedandprecariouslytaught.Inotherwords,the complexityofthesituationrequirestreatingtheproblemsfromtwodifferentperspectives,whichare relatedtothetwosociographiccategoriescharacterizingthepopulationdistribution,thatis,the urbanandtherural.Itisnecessarytorememberthatthecapitalofthecountryhasapproximatelysix hundredthousandinhabitants,andthenextlargesturbancenterafterAsunci6nhasonlyfifty thousand,accordingtothe1982census.Ofthetotalpopulation,57.2percentbelongtotherural sector. Thisdisproportioninthepopulationdistributionaffectsthequalityandquantityofservices, includingeducation.Theaspectsofbilingualismofspecificinterestherearetheneedsandattitudes ofthepeopleinregardtotheuseand/orteachingofthetwolanguages.Atthispointitisnecessary tointroducethenotionofJopara,whichresultedfromthecontactbetweenthelanguagesin question.Joparahasseriousimplicationsforbothusageandeducation.Forgreaterclarityinthe followingexposition,Joparawillbedescribedfromtwoperspectivesthesocialandthelinguistic. AttitudesoftheSpeaker.Althoughtheattitudesofthespeakertowarduseofthelanguageshave beenexplored(Rubin,1968),mentionshouldbemadeoftheattitudestowardJopara.Thatis,while loyaltyandprideexistwithrespecttoGuarani,thereexists,paradoxically,acertaindeprecatory attitudewithrespecttotheusagenormsofthetwolinguisticcodes.G.deGrandaaccuratelystates that"itisfeasibletofindtherootsofthecomplexofattitudeswhichconcernusinaspecific,easily individualizedevent:theerroneouschoiceofthelinguisticreferencemodelwithrespecttowhich thecharacteristicvarietiesofcontemporarySpanishandGuaraniarejudged"[Translatedfromde Granda,1981].Indeed,itiscommontohearjudgmentswhetherpositiveornegativeregarding Paraguayanspeechinanytypeoflinguisticsituation,socialstrata,subjectfordiscussion,andsoon. Inotherwords,theidiolectofthenativespeakerisalwayssubjecttowhatiscommonlycalledla picotapublica[thetownpillory]. ThecurrentsociolinguisticsituationinParaguayisextremelyodd.Wearerapidlyretreatingfrom theignoranceand/orindifferencewhichforalongtimecharacterizedthissociocultural phenomenon.ItwouldseemthattheParaguayanshavesuddenlyawakenedfromtheirlethargyand areconfrontinganewsituationinwhichtheyareoverlyconcernedaboutwhatis"correct"or "incorrect"ineachlanguage.Severalfactorsenterintothisprocess:thepuristsofbothlanguages,a "new"perceptionofwhatitmeanstobeabilingualcountry,greaterexposuretotheuseofthecodes throughmassmedia,andanincreaseinresearchandpublicationonParaguayanbilingualism.The gravityofthisnewsituationstemsmainlyfromtheriseofa"collectivelinguisticinferiority complex"[Trans 368

latedfromdeGranda,1961],ifthestepsnecessaryforseriousandviablelinguisticplanningarenot taken. JoparaastheResultofGuaraniSpanishContact.Thelong,intensecontactbetweenthetwo nationallanguagesofParaguayhasgivenrisetoprofoundinterferencesbetweentherespective linguisticsystemsonthemorphosyntactic,lexical,andphonemiclevels.Thelinguisticresultofthis interferenceiscommonlyknownasJopara.Consequently,thestructuralconvergenceismuchmore obviousandseriousinthewrittenmode.Notwithstanding,ParaguayanSpanishisusuallycompared toformalHispaniclinguisticusageandnotevenwiththevarioustypesofSpanishcurrentlyused inSpain.Joparaischaracteristicofincipientbilingualsandisfound,toalesserdegree,among coordinatebilinguals.Inthemain,Joparaistypicallyrestrictedtourbanareas,and,ofcourse,tothe capital.Ontheotherhand,theuseof"pure"Guaraniismorecommoninruralareas.Thechoiceof linguisticvarietyisdeterminedbythespeaker'ssexandage. BilingualEducation Manyauthorshaveproposeddifferentmodelsofprogramsforbilingualdevelopment.Factors consideredare:language,lengthofinstructionaltime,typeofcurriculum,socioeconomic characteristicsofthestudents,trainedteachingstaff,andfinally,shortandlongtermgoals.In otherwords,thetypeofbilingualeducationmustbedirectlyrelatedononehandtoeducational goals,andontheothertotheobjectiveofmaintainingandexpandingSpanish/Guaranibilingualism asthemostrelevantanduniquecharacteristicoftheParaguayansociolinguisticcontext. Aglanceattheteacher'smanual,ManualdeEducacionBilinge[ManualforBilingualEducation], revealsthattheobjectiveofthebilingualprograminprimaryschoolisforthechild"toappreciate thenationallanguages,toexpresshimselfconfidentlyinthem,andtodevelopthebasicskillsof listening,speaking,readingandwritinginSpanish,andoflisteningandspeakinginGuarani'" (Corvaln'semphasis).Thisdecisionisbasedon"thenecessityforthechildtodevelopapositive selfimageandaffirmhisidentityasaParaguayan,byofferinghimtheopportunitytoexpressthe valuesofthenationalcultureintheirtrueequality"[TranslatedfromParaguayMEC,1981]. Themoststrikingfeatureabouttheobjectivesofthenationallanguagepolicyisthatdifferent linguisticgoalsaresetforeachlanguage.Forthestandardlanguage,itisrecommendedthatthefour stagesinthelanguageacquisitionprocessbeobtained.InthecaseofGuarani,wecontinueto confineittoitstraditionalroleasalanguagefororalcommunication,therebyexposingitsooneror latertothecertaindangerofstagnationand/orextinction.Itisverydifficulttomaintainandenricha livinglanguagewhichisneitherreadnorwritten,especiallywhenitscommunityofspeakersare subjecttooutsidelinguisticandculturalinfluences.IntimewewillnolongerspeakoftheGuarani language, 369

butratherofwhatiscommonlycalled"badlyspokenSpanish"whenthelevelandkindof interferenceineitherlanguagebecomesuncontrollablebecausecorrectiveeducationalmeasures havenotbeentaken. Inordertounderstandtheproblemsthatconfrontedtheeducationalsystem,itisnecessaryto considertwoimportantaspectsofthatsystem:itscentralizedcharacter,andthefactthat instructionisinSpanishregardlessofthepupil'ssociographicmilieuorlevelofcompetencein Spanish.Inshort,asingletypeofinstructionexistedthroughoutthecountry.However,afew yearsago,theProgramforBilingualEducationwasapprovedforuseonthenationallevel.This program takesintoconsiderationtheuseofbothSpanishandGuaraniintheteaching/learning process,withemphasisononeortheotherlanguagedependingonthelinguistic abilityofthechild.AttheprimarylevelSpanishandGuaraniareusedfororal communication(listeningandspeaking),whileforreadingandwriting,onlySpanish isused.AstheGuaranimonolingualacquiresproficiencyinSpanish,theuseof Spanishisintensified.TheProgramadeEducacionBilinge[ProgramforBilingual Education]isthusaprogramoftransition[TranslatedfromMEC,1981]. Inactualpractice,Guaraniisstillusedinthetraditionalwayintheprimaryschoolsofruralareas andlowerclassurbanareas,thatis,fortranslatingtheeducationalcontentfromSpanish.Itis alsousedtoaidschoolsthathaveimplementedtheProgramforBilingualEducation,whichat thistimehasnotestablishedacurriculumforthemaintenanceandimprovementofGuarani.This programisclearlyinitsinitialstage;thereisstillmuchthatneedstobeadjusted,changed,and triedoutintermsofbilingualmethodologyandtypesofinstruction,andhenceintheuseof nativelanguageintheclassroom.Althoughguidelinesfortheimplementationofthemethod havebeenestablished,thereisnodoubtthatacertainmarginoffreedomshouldbelefttothe teacherwithrespecttothevarioussituationsarisingfromclassroominteraction(Corvaln, 1983). Mucheffortisbeingdevotedtothepreparationandpublicationoftextsfortheteachingof Guaranistructure(Canese,1984).Alsounderdevelopmentisateacher'sguideonthekindsof interferencealreadyanalyzed,especiallytheinterferenceofGuaraniwithParaguayanSpanish. Theseendeavorsareorientedtowardthegoalofstandardizingthenativelanguageandthereby increasingtheprestigeitacquiresasaresultofconversiontoastandardlanguage(Corvaln, 1985). Thisbringsustoanotherquestionwithpoliticalovertonestheadoptionofauniformspelling systemforGuarani.IfParaguayisgoingtocontinuetobebilingual,thecontroversyoverthefew disputedsymbolsshouldnotbeallowedtoobstructtheeffortstowardstandardization.Itmustnot beforgottonthatanorallanguagecanneithermaintainitsvitalitynoraugmentthenumberofits speakersifitisthreatenedbythecompulsiveuseofastandardlanguagethatisalsotheofficial languageofthecountry. 370

Theemphasisonsocalledlanguageunificationleadstotheatrophyofcreativeforcesthathave historicallyshapedParaguayannationalidentitythroughtheGuaranilanguage.Itispossiblethat theprocessofHispanicizationwillleadtoacrisisofidentityinwhichonelosesone'ssenseof belongingtoauniquenation. If,however,instructionwereparallelononehand,literacy,sothatthetransitionfromtherural totheurbanworldcouldbemadethroughuseofthenativelanguage,andontheotherhand,the gradualandprogressiveteachingofSpanishthroughoutthehighergradesthenthedoorstoa worldofknowledgewouldbeopenedanditwouldbepossibletoobtainthetoolsnecessaryfor fullsocialparticipation.Inshort,whatisbeingproposedhereisagradualandsystematic programof"immersion"inthesecondlanguagewithoutneglectingthenativelanguage.The nativelanguagewouldbemaintainedthroughoutthecurriculum,notmerelyasanaidfor learningthesecondlanguage,butalsoasalanguagetobetaughttogetherwiththewholesetof rulesgoverningitsinternalstructure. Inthecaseofindigenoustribeswithdifferentlanguages,Guaraniisthemosteffectivemedium ofbothcommunicationandinstruction.Thistaskismainlyundertakenbynumerousgroupsof German,American,andothermissionariesseekingtoproselytize.Theefforthasledtothe preparationandpublicationofreading/writingtextsandprimersinGuarani,sothatitmayserve asalinguafrancaamongthedifferentindigenousgroups. WiththeimportantexceptionofthefirstNationalCensusoftheIndian,takenin1982, governmentalconcernforthesequestionshasbeensmall.Themostimportantinitiativesare takenbytheprivatesector,especiallytheCommitteeofParaguayanChurches,whichisinvolved withboththefightforlandandtheeducationalprocess. SociolinguisticResearchinParaguay Withoutattemptingtoofferanexhaustive,stateoftheartdescriptionofParaguayan bilingualism,letusdevotethelastpartofthisstudytomilestonesintheresearchonthelinguistic situationunderconsideration. Differenttheoreticalpositionshavebeentakenbyforeignresearcherswhich,"although quantitativelyabundant[are]notalwaysacceptableintermsofscientificadequacy"(deGranda, 1982).Thus,wehaveacontinuumoftheoreticalpositionsconcerningtherelativityof bilingualism(Rona,1973)goingfrom"auniquepatternofbilingualismonanationalscalein theworld"(Ferguson,1959)totheviewwhichholdsthattoconsider"SpanishandGuaranias separatelanguagesistoappealtoabstractions"(Mela,1973). OthersconsideritpossibletoplacethecomplexlinguisticsituationofParaguayintoaconceptual frameworkinwhichbothlanguagesarepolarizedbetweentheconceptsofpowerandsolidarity (Rubin,1968).Thisviewemphaticallyrejects(deGranda,1981)thecharacterizationofthe Paraguayanlinguisticcommunity 371

aspredominatelydiglossic(Mela,1973).Tothesetheoreticalconceptionsmustbeaddedoneof recentappearanceinwhichthefundamentalaspectregardingSpanish/Guaraniuseisconsideredto betheurbanruralcontinuum(Corvaln,1981).BecauseofalackofresearchbyParaguayans, manyofthestudiesbyforeignauthorshavebeencitedsooftenthatinsomecasestheiroriginal meaninghasbeendistorted.ThishasclearlybeenthecasewiththeworkofRubin(Wood,1981).In recentyears,acriticalreexaminationofthesestudieshasbeenundertakenforthepurposeof evaluatingthemunderperspectivesthataremoreobjectiveandmoreinlinewithParaguayan sociolinguisticreality(deGranda,1979;Corvaln,1982). Inthepast,mostoftheliteratureofParaguayanbilingualismconsistedoflongdescriptionsofthe originanddevelopmentofGuarani.Akindofromanticandalmost"supernatural"auraconcerning theexistenceandsurvivalofGuaranithroughtimeenvelopedtheseworks.Theirnaivetecontributed totheemergenceofthepronouncedlinguisticawarenessoftheParaguayanacharacteristicthat distinguishestheParaguayanfromspeakersinotherLatinAmericanbilingualsettings(deGranda, 1981).Sincethe1970s,therehasbeenmoreemphasisonscientificrigor.However,thelevelof productionhasnotfilledthegapsstillexistinginbasic,empiricaldatainformationthatisso essentialfortheapplicationofmorecomplextheoreticalandinterpretativeframesofreference. In1963,theAmericananthropologist,JoanRubin,beganpublishingdataforherdoctoralthesis, "BilingualisminParaguay"whichwouldhaveastronginfluenceinascientificarealittleknown untilthen. Atthebeginningofthe1940s,acertainstereotypeoftheroleofGuaraniinParaguayansocietyhad beenformed.Themajorityofauthors,mainlyprominentpoliticiansandliteraryfigures,werein agreementthat"thepopulationusesGuaraniorSpanishindiscriminately,ingreaterorlesserdegree accordingtothecircumstancesorparticularsocialsectors"inwhichcommunicationtakesplace (Insfran,1942). PerhapsithasbeeninthefieldofParaguayanliteraturetodayasinthepastthatthepositiveand negativefeaturesofbilingualismhavebeendebatedthemost.Thesetraitsbecamethethemeofa lengthypolemic,illdefineduntilnow,andresultedinwriterstakingastanceeitherfororagainst theuseofthevernacularinliteraryworks.Thus,manyauthorsfeelthatbilingualismisoneofthe majorobstaclesconfrontingthedevelopmentofParaguayanfiction.RoaBastosposesthisdilemma whenheaskswhatwouldhappenifanauthorwroteonlyinGuarani.Thiswould"limithisworkto thelocalarea....Asweknow,whenonewritesinSpanishbutthinksinGuarani,translationis carriedoutduringtheveryprocessofliterarycreation.Thiscannotbutaffecttheintegrityofthe work"(RoaBastos,1957).Thispositionhaschangedovertimeintoanassertionthatbilingualism shouldbepresentinParaguayanliteratureeventhoughitisrestrictive(RoaBastos,1982). In1964,theworkonbilingualismbegantoacquiredifferentcharacteristics, 372

andRubin'sstronginfluencewasfeltonthespecializedliterature.AParaguayanjournalcommented thatbilingualism"followsatypicallyParaguayansystemofalternationbetweentwosocialforces power...andsolidarity...,explainingthecombinationoftheforcesinadditiontothecurious casesinwhichoneofthetwoforcestemporarilyreigns"(Codas,1964). Onatheoreticalplane,thequestionhasbeenraisedaboutwhether"Paraguayhasenteredintoa stagewhichisneitheratendencytowardmonolingualismnoranaffirmationofbilingualism,but ratheraslippageintoalingualism"aconcernbasedonmodernstructurallinguisticsinwhich"the individualisspokenbythelanguage"(Mela,1973).Thisviewisanalyzedfromthestandpointof thesocialfactorsthatbearonthepotentialexistenceofalingualism,i.e.lackoflanguage,a possibilitythathasproducedsomeconsternation,andevensurprise,inParaguayanintellectual circles.TheprosandconsofMela'sargumentledtoimmediatediscussion,withgreatdifferences ofopinion. Thewidediffusionofknowledge,interpretations,and,tosomeextent,distortionofthebilingual probleminParaguaybeganwiththe"discovery"ofthissituationbyforeignresearchers(Corvaln, 1982).Paraguayanbilingualismbegantooccupyaprominentand"exotic"placeintheclassic literatureonbilingualism(Fishman,1967).Paradoxically,theobscuritysurroundingthesubject increased. OwingtothefewstudiesproducedbyParaguayans,themoreorlessreliablefindingsofforeigners cametobetakenas"theexplanation,"inspiteofcertainweaknessesinmethodologyandinthe sampleschosenforpurposesofgeneralizationtothenationallevel(Rona,1966). AnopposingviewholdsthatthebilingualsituationinParaguayisnotsosharplydelineated,except inrelationtootherLatinAmericancountries.Theconcerniswiththedissensionexistingamong ParaguayansovertheestablishmentofClassicalGuaraniontheonehandandJoparaontheother. ThisindicatedthatbothlanguagesGuaraniandSpanishcouldcoexistwithoutdangerof degradationorextinction(Pottier,1969). ThefirstspecializedbibliographyonParaguayanbilingualismappearedinthemid1970sandwas republishedinsucceedingyears.This,alongwithanotherbibliographyonbilingualisminLatin America,becamethemostexhaustivereferencematerialpublishedtodateonParaguayan bilingualism(Corvaln,1982,1984). Theinterferencebetweenthetwocontactlanguageshasbeenstudiedthroughtheanalysisofa writtencorpusfurnishedbyasamplingofstudentsfromavocationaltechnicalschool(Welti, 1979).Thisisoneofthefewstudiesthatbringintofocusthelimitationsofabilingualcommunity fromastructuralperspective.Loanwordsbetweenthetwolanguagesalsoarouseinterestamong scholars.However,theproblemposedbyJoparaiscriticized,eventhoughasystematicanalysisof thecontactlanguageshasnotyetbeencarriedout(Herreros,1976;Dominguez,1978;deGranda, 1979,1980;Morinigo,1931).Theextentanduseofthelinguisticcodesexistingintherepertoryof bilingualcommunities(Rubin,1968;Mela,1973;deGranda,1980)aswellastheinter 373

pretationofstructuresandtheprocessesoflinguisticconvergence(Mela,1973;Morinigo,1959; Tovar,1964;Cassano,1973)areimportantcontributionstotheunderstandingofParaguayan bilingualism. Thefindingsofsomeofthesestudiesmadeconsiderableimpactonsomedeeplyrootedideasin Paraguayansociety,thatis,certainarchaismsinSpanishthathadbeenthoughttobeGuarani loanwords,andtheinfluenceofArgentinespeech.Theseareclarifiedanddiscussedmore objectivelyinthesestudies(deGranda,1979). Alsoofinteresttoforeignscholarsforalongtimehasbeeneverythingpertinenttotheattitudes ofthepeopletowardeachlanguage(Rubin,1978;deGranda,1981;Rona,1966;Garvinand Mathiot,1960).Thisconcern,togetherwiththedevelopmentofmorequalifiedresearchers,has ledtotheemergenceofaParaguayanbodyofliteraturewhichanalyzesspecificsegmentsofthe population,forexample,theattitudesofprimaryteachersandparentswithrespecttotheuseof Guarani(Corvaln,1982;MEC,1976;PrezMaricevichetal.,1978). Inthemid1970s,thefirststudywaspublishedwhichanalyzedlinguisticinteractioninthe classroombasedontheuseofnonparametricstatistics.Themainobjectivewastoexplorethe incidenceofbilingualismintheschoolperformanceofprimarychildrenandtheirteachers (Rivarolaetal.,1978). TheMinistryofEducationsurveyedtheopinionsofparentsandteacherswithrespecttotheuse ofthelanguagesandalsomadethefirstattempttomeasurethelinguisticcompetenceoffirst gradechildren(PrezMaricevichetal.,1978).Thislineofresearchwasrepeatedwithfourth gradestudentswhohadfinishedtheprogramcalled"Bilinguismo"offeredbycertainschools (Corvaln,1982).Bothstudiesarethefirstoftheirkindandshedsubstantiallightonthe measurementnotonlyoftheoralandwrittenlinguisticcompetenceofchildrenbutalsoofthe teacher/studentinteractionintheclassroom. ContributiontoknowledgeabouttheParaguayanlinguisticsituationwasthepublicationofthe twovolumesofSociedadyLengua:BilinguismoenelParaguay(Corvalnetal.,1982),which bringtogetherthemostrepresentativeandwidelyknownworksonthesubject.Theimportance ofthisworkliesnotonlyintheinclusionofoutofprintorinaccessiblestudies,butalsointhe SpanishtranslationofseveralworksoriginallywritteninEnglishwhichhavelongbeenthemost importantandwellknownconceptualframesofreference.Atthebeginningof1985,therewas publishedsomeresearchfocusingspecificallyontheimplicationsofbilingualismforformal education(Corvaln,1985). CONCLUSIONS Boththepublicandprivatesectorshaveshownagrowingconcernandinterestintheinfluence ofbilingualismontheteaching/learningprocess.Startingin1985forthefirsttimeeverthe ideaofliteracyinthenativelanguagewasconsideredinParaguay.Thiswillresultinthe productionoftextsandprimersforexperimentaluse. 374

TheaccumulationandspreadofscientificknowledgeaboutParaguayanbilingualismhas contributedtotheincreaseintheprideandidentityofthenativespeakerwithrespecttothetwo majorlanguagesofParaguaySpanishandGuarani. Theprincipalobjectiveofthisoverviewistoachieveefficientandviablelinguisticplanning withintheformaleducationalsystemandtoraisetheawarenessoftheParaguayanlinguistic communitywithrespecttothestandardizationofGuarani,forpurposesofmaintainingand/or expandingbilingualismonthenationallevel. BIBLIOGRAPHY Asuncin,NationalArchives,S.H.1848."Decretodeclarandociudadanoslibresalosindios naturalesdetodalarepublica."Vol.282,No.24. BarretR.1943.Obrascompletas.BuenosAires:AmericaLee,pp.15153. BenitezJ.P.1955.Formacionsocialdelpuebloparaguayo.Asuncin:AmericaSapucaia,p.26. CaneseK.de.1984.Sobrelaunificaciondelalfabetodelalenguaguarani.Asuncin,37p.(a mquina). CardozoE.1959.ElParaguayColonial.BuenosAires:Niza,pp.12627. CassanoP.V.1973."TheSubstrateTheoryinRelationtotheBilingualismofParaguay. ProblemsandFindings."AnthropologicalLinguistics15,9:40625. ChaseM.Sardi1972."EsquematnicodelParaguay."RevistaDilogo1,14:30. CodasC.1964."ElbilinguismoenelParaguay."Ybytyrus.RevistaGuaireadeCultura2,8: 2123. CorvalnG.1977.ParaguayNacinBilinge.Asuncin:CentroParaguayodeEstudios Sociolgicos,p.18. .1981."Laeducacinbilingeyelcontextosociocultural:ElcasodelParaguayylos EstadosUnidos."PaperpresentedattheXVISeminarioInternacional,AsociacinArgentinade EstudiosAmericanos,BuenosAires,1821September17p. .1982."ElbilinguismoenlaeducacinenelParaguay:escreativouopresivo?" InSociedadyLengua:BilinguismoenelParaguay,ed.G.CorvalnandG.deGranda. Asuncin:CentroParaguayodeEstudiosSociolgicos,p.191. .1983.QueeselbilinguismoenelParaguay?Asuncin:CentroParaguayodeEstudios Sociolgicos,56p. .1984."EnseanzaenlenguamaternayrendimientoeducativoenelParaguay." Perspectivas14,1:97108.

.1985.Lenguayeducacin:Undesafonacional.Asuncin:CentroParaguayodeEstudios Sociolgicos.136p. DeG.Granda1979."ElespaoldelParaguay,temas,problemasymtodos."Estudios ParaguayosdelaUniversidadCatlica7,1:9145. .1980."Lenguaysociedad.NotassobreelespaoldelParaguay."EstudiosParaguayosde laUniversidadCatlica8,1:9140. .1981."ActitudessociolinguisticasenelParaguay."RevistaParaguayadeSociologa18, 51:722. .1982."CalcossintcticosdelguaranenelespaoldelParaguay."InSociedadyLengua: BilinguismoenelParaguay 375

yLengua:BilinguismoenelParaguay,ed.G.CorvalnandG.deGranda.Asuncin:Centro ParaguayodelEstudiosSociolgicos,pp.70132. DominguezR.1978."GlosariodelYopar."SuplementoAntropolgicodelaUniversidadCatlica 13,12:26174. FergusonCh.1966."DiscusinsobreelestudiodeRona."Sociolinguistics:29397. FishmanJ.1967."BilingualismWithandWithoutDiglossia;DiglossiaWithandWithout Bilingualism."InProblemsofBilingualism,ed.JohnMacnamara.JournalofSocialIssues23,2: 2938. GarvinP.andM.Mathiot.1960."TheUrbanizationoftheGuaraniLanguage:AProblemin LanguageandCulture."InMenandCultures,ed.AnthonyF.C.Walance.Selectedpapersofthe FifthInternationalCongressofAnthropologicalandEtnologicalSciences.Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvaniaPress,pp.78390. GuaschA.1944.Elidiomaguaran:gramtica,vocabulariodoble,lecturas.Asuncin:Imprenta Nacional,p.322. HerrerosB.U.de.1976."Castellanoparaguayo.Notasparaunagramticacontrastivacastellano guaran."SuplementoAntropolgicodelaUniversidadCatlica12:29123. InsfranP.M.1942."ElParaguay,pasbilinge."RevistadelAteneoParaguayo1,56:5961. InstitutoParaguayodelIndgena.1982.CensoyestudiodelapoblacinindgenadelParaguay, 1981.Asuncin:ParaguayanInstituteforIndianStudies,pp.2933. KostianovskyO.M.de.1975.Lainstruccinpblicaenlapocacolonial.2ded.Asuncin:Escuela TecnicaSalesiana,pp.13233. MelaB.,S.J.1973."Elguarandominanteydominado."SuplementoAntropolgicodela UniversidadCatlica8,12:11928. .1974."HacaunaterceralenguaenelParaguay."EstudiosParaguayos2,2:3171. MorenoF.R.1959.LaciudaddeAsuncin.pp.60,121. MorinigoM.A.1959."Influenciadelespaolenlaestructuralingusticadelguaran."Boletnde Filologa.5,3:23547. Paraguay.MinisteriodeEducacinyCulto.1981.EducacinbilingeenelParaguay.Manualpara elMaestro.Asuncin:M.E.C.,p.171. PrezMaricevichFranciscoetal.1978.Algunosaspectosdelrendimientoescolarrelacionadoscon elbilinguismo.Ed.HctorA.Macchi.BuenosAires,p.220. PlaJ.1970."Espaolyguaranenlaintimidaddelaculturaparaguaya."Caravelle14:17. PottierB.1969."Aspectosdelbilinguismoparaguayo."SuplementoAntropolgicodelaRevistadel AteneoParaguayo4,1:18993. RivarolaD.,etal.1978.DeterminantesdelrendimientoeducativoenelParaguay.Asuncin: CPES/ECIEL,p.224. RoaA.Bastos1957."Problemadenuestranovelstica."Alcor7:68. .1978.LasCulturasCondenadas.Mexico:Sigloxx. RonaJosPedro.1966."TheSocialandCulturalStatusofGuaraniinParaguay."In Sociolinguistics:ProceedingsoftheUCLASociolinguisticConference,ed.H.Bright.The Hague/Paris:Mouton,pp.27798.

.1973."Larelatividaddelbilinguismoysurealizacinsocial."Paperpresentedatthe Simposiosobresociolinguisticayplanificacinlinguistica,Mexico,D.F.,June. 376

RubinJ.1968."BilingualisminParaguay."AnthropologicalLinguistics4,4:5258. .1978."TowardBilingualEducationforParaguay."GeorgetownUniversityRoundTableon LanguagesandLinguistics.Ed.JamesE.Alatis.Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress, pp.189201. SusnikB.1965.ElIndioColonialdelParaguay.Vol.1.Asuncin:MuseoEtnogrfico"Andrs Barbero,"p.26. TovarA.1964."Espaolylenguasindgenas,algunosejemplos."PresenteyFuturodelaLengua Espaola.ActasdelaAsambleadeFilologadelICongresodeInstitucionesHispnicas.Madrid: CulturaHispnica,pp.24557. WeltiM.C.de.1979."BilinguismoenelParaguay.Loslmitesdelacomunicacin."Revista ParaguayadeSociologa.16,46:6397. WoodR.E.1981."CurrentSociolinguisticsinLatinAmerica."LatinAmericanResearchReview. 16,1. 377 [Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 378

19AlbertoEscobar BILINGUALISMINPERU AnaccountofthepeoplesandlanguagesofPerumustbeginwithasketchofthesourcesof informationconcerningthespeakersandlanguagesinquestionaswellasthedegreeofbior multilingualism.Forthetwentiethcentury,referencecanbemadetothenationalpopulation censusesof1940(ofparticularinterest),1961,1972,and1981.Bydrawingonvarioussources,it hasbeenpossibletoreconstructfiguresforthenineteenthcentury,fortheyears1828,1836,1861, 1862,and1873,whichcanbecombinedwiththemorerecentdata. OwingtotheinfluxofmigrantsandtheconcentrationofeconomicpowerinLima,thecapital cityhasoutdistancedtherestofthecountry,especiallysincetheendofthelastcentury, achievinganunparalleledgrowthequaltoonequarterofthetotalpopulationin1981(Table19.1 ). Itisnottheintentheretocallattentiontotherelativedisagreementofresearchersconcerningthe aimsofthecensuses.Rather,asoneinvestigatorrecentlynoted(Suarez,1979:6667),thereare obviousreasonsforquestioningthewayinwhichthePeruvianpopulationhasbeenenumerated andthemethodologyused,particularlyinthelatestcensuses.Thatis,thetotalpopulation actuallycounted,thetotalcountedplustheomitted,andthetotalcountedplustheomittedand theestimated(theSelvapopulation)appearunderdifferenthypotheses,accordingtowhether comparisonismadebetweenthecensusesof1940and1961ontheonehandandbetweenthose of1972and1981ontheother.Thereismorethanonehypothesisforthemethodological changes,and,ofcourse,thosechangeswillhaveaneffectonthedegreeofcontrastbetweenthe urbanandruralpopulations.Theruralisapparentlylinkedwith"Indian ____________________ TranslatedfromSpanishbyLeePuigAntich. 379

Table19.1 PopulationofPeru 1940 1961 1972 1981 Totalpopulation 6208 9907 13538 17518 (inthousands) %ofurbanpopulation 35.4 47.4 59.5 65.1 %ofruralpopulation 64.5 52.6 40.5 34.9 Rateofannualgrowth 2.3 2.9 2.6 Rateofgrowth Urbanpopulation 3.7 5.1 3.6 Ruralpopulation 1.3 0.5 0.9 Source:CensosNacionalesdePoblacion.Peru. ness,"whiletheurbanisassociatedwithmodernism.Itissimilarlyacknowledgedthatthedegree ofilliteracy,schooling,decreaseintheuseoflanguagesotherthanSpanish,andattitudestoward theindigenousculture(attachment,rejection,scorn)arerootedintheurbanruraldichotomy. Recently,agroupofsocialscientistsfromtheIEP(InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanosInstituteof PeruvianStudies),directedbyJ.Coder,hasadvancedthestudyoftheurbanizationprocessand thepopularsectors.Byadjustingthecensuscalculations,theIEPhasconcludedthatPeruisnot asurbanizedasgenerallybelievedandthatmigrationisprimarilyaffectingLima(Cotleretal., 1984;Galinetal.,1985). Forthesubjectunderconsiderationhere,theimportanceoftheadjustmentsmadetothe statisticalinstrumentsusedinrecentyearsisthattherateofurbanizationexperiencedbythe countryinthelastfortyyearshasnotbeensoexplosiveandthattheerainwhichthemajorityof Peruviansettlementswereconsideredruralisnotsolongago.Thatis,asimportantasmigration isinquantitativeandpsychosocialterms,ithasnotcausedthesuddenconversionofabasically ruralcountrywithfewurbannucleiintheinteriorintoanurbanized,modern,andhomogeneous landthathasshakenthesymptomsofculturalpluralityandprovincialmultilingualism. Table19.2showstheprogressioninthefiguresastheyemergefromthecensusdocumentsat hand(priortoanalysis).Itisnecessarytorealizethatwearefacedwithaproblemthatiscrucial totheunderstandingoftheworldandofcontem 380

Table19.2 PopulationbyDepartment,Peru(inthousands) 1828 1838 1881 1862 1873 1961 1972 1981 Peru 1,250 1,374 2,699 10,420 14,121 17,032 Lima 149 152 331 181 223 1,682 3,086 4,738 Arequipa 137 137 184 122 134 407 561 702 Cuzco 216 216 530 800 310 648 751 829 Ayachucho 160 160 230 130 236 430 479 501 Junin 200 144 332 210 278 546 720 849 Puna 156 156 246 727 813 894 Libertad 231 162 143 80 183 609 808 961 Source:DatafromBasadre,1961:1,167y11,513;Baldomero,1861;PazSoldan, 1982;Cabello,1873.TabletakenfromMuwaken,Pieter,Lima,19701890: areconnelsance,mns.,pp.1415.Datafrom1972Census.AlbertoEscobar,"Limayel ProyectoNacional:Lengua,SociedadyCulture."InLimadansrealiteperuvienne.A.F.E.R.P.A. Grenoble,1975,p.33.(Escobar1983:322) poraryPeru,andthatthisunintentionaldistortionhaseffectsthatmustbetakeninto consideration. Tospeakofbiandmultilingualisminasocietythathaspolarizedtheurbanandruralrequires recognizingtheexistenceanduseoftheaboriginallanguagesaswellastheirappropriatenessfor differentrolesinthecultureandinthebehaviorofindividualsandsocialgroupsasurbanorrural monoandbilinguals. HISTORICALANTECEDENTS Thedistinctivecharacteroftheformationofmodernstatesinthispartoftheworldisaresultof whatistermedthe"discovery,conquestandcolonization"oftheNewWorldbyEuropeans, especiallySpaniards.OfobviousconcernhereistheencounterbetweenpreHispaniccultures andtheSpanishsoldierswhosettledintheselandsaftertheinvasion.Thecourseofthat encounter(intermsofcultures,languages,materialgoods,andsemioticcodes)hasbeenwell coveredbyPeruvianandotherSouthAmericanhistorians.Whatneedstobeemphasizedisthat duringthearrivaloftheSpanishlanguageinAmerica(thesixteenthcentury),aformofthat languagebegantobeconsolidatedandextendedthroughouttheIberianPeninsulabythe Castillianpeople.Thereconquestofthepeninsulahadoccurred,solidifyingthekingdomof FerdinandandIsabella.InthesameyearthattheMoorsdeparted(1492),Columbus'shipsset forthtodiscovernew 381

routestotheOrient,andthefirstgrammarofalanguagederivedfromLatinwasprinted GrammaticaCastellanabyAntoniodeNebrija.Fromthebeginning,differentiationbegantobe noticeableonAmericansoil.ThecircumstancesinwhichtheSpaniardsestablishedthemselveson thelandvariedwidelyaccordingtowhetherancientculturesandsocieties(suchasthe MesoamericanandtheAndean)wereinvolved.Thatis,insomeareasthepresenceofaboriginal manandculturewastenuousanddisappearedrapidly.Inotherregionsthispresencewasalmost nonexistent,whileinstillothersitnotonlyexistedbuthasmaintaineditselfforcenturies,evento thepresentday(Escobar,1968;Suarez,1968;HeathandLaprade,1982:132;UgarteChamorro, 1961). Inspiteofthecolonialandrepublicanperiods,ethnicgroupsstillexistwhichappeartopreservea culturallinkwiththeancient,preHispanicpeoplesandlanguages.Thistypeofcontacthasledto variousoutcomesintermsofintegration(totalorpartial)intonationalsociety.Furthermore,ifone recallsthenumerouslinguisticfamiliesthathavebecomeextinct(e.g.,alongthecoast,tomention theobvious),itispossibletoimaginethediversityineacheraandthefactorscontributingtothe treatmentoftheindigenouspeoples.Theinteractionbetweenthehumangroups,resultinginthe restrictionoftheaboriginalstothesouthernSierraandtheAmazonSelva,hasbeenamisfortune thatexplainstheappearanceofmonolingualsinlanguagesfrequentlythoughttobeexotic"dialects." However,evenQuechuaandAymara,whichhavebecomefamiliarthroughthestudyofPeruvian history,havenotescapedbeingregardedassignsofinferiority(CerrnPalomino,1982a). Theprecedingsuggeststhatanaccountofthepresentsituationneedstotakethepastintoaccountin ordertoovercomeattitudesstillprevalentamongmiddleclassmonolingualspeakersofSpanish.By virtueofspeakinganykindofSpanishwhatsoever,theylackthesocialperspectivenecessaryfor understandingtheprocessesinvolvedintheformationofthePeruviannationandtheproductiveness ofthechangesmadeinthelasttwentyfiveyears.Duringthistimebilingualism,peasantSpanishor interlanguage,andregionalaccentshaveacquiredafundamentalrolethatofincreasingthewaysof makingoneselfunderstood.Inotherwords,realityandsocialchangearerapidlybutimperceptibly attainingthestatusofsemiologicalcodes,amongwhichlanguages,music,andpolychromeartraise anissuethathasbeenofgreatconcernsincetheWarofthePacifictheproblemofnationalidentity (CEDEP,1979). Thelanguagequestionislinkedtothedevelopmentofeducationalthoughtandintellectualhistory inthenewsociety.Itisformulatedandtheneithersupportedorforgotten,accordingtotrends, governments,individuals,andframesofreferenceandthisinasocietywhosesenseofnationhood dependsonrecognitionofitsidentityandofacommonpurpose,thatis,communicatingbymeans ofalanguage,Spanish,whichisagenerallanguagebuthardlytheonlyone.Thisisobviouslya problemforboththesociologyoflanguageandsociolinguistics.Itisnecessarytorealizethatwe haverepeatedopinions,figures, 382

 andmaterialswithoutcontrastinghistoricalfactwithcontemporarytrendsintheethnographyof ruralurbancommunication(Escobaretal.,1975). Therelationshipbetweenspeakersandtheirpositioninsocietyshowstheroleofthelanguages onboththelocalandnationallevels.Thelinguisticoutcomeintermsofsocialstratification, numbersofspeakers,languageroles,andlanguageloyaltyoffersatopographyofthefunctions androlesofthedifferentlanguages.Untilrecently,boththenationalandregionalupperclasses ofthecountryexercisedpolitical,economic,andinternationalpower.Therefore,masteryof Spanishhasbeenanindispensablerequirementforadmissiontopositionsofresponsibilityatthe heightofsocialpower.AtthebaseofthepyramidaretheAmerindianmonolinguals,abovethem theinterlanguagespeakers(rangingfromincipienttosubordinatebilinguals),andthenthe provincialspeakersofregionalSpanish(withthecoastalvarietybeingsomewhathigheronthe scalethantheAndean).AttheapexoneexpectstofindaLimamodel,andbeyondthat,apan Hispanicstandard,understoodtobeanadjustedvarietyofAmericanandpeninsularSpanish (Escobar,1975:3343;BurgaandFloresGalindo,1979:155266). THEPRESENTSITUATION Colonialsocietylaidthefoundationsforrepublicansociety,withtheresultthatuntilrecentlythe leadershiphashadadistortedandbiasedviewofthelanguagesofnonSpanishspeakers. Obviously,thecolonialstructurewouldbecalledintoquestionaftertheWarofthePacificand afterthisstatementbyGonzalezPrada:"TherealPerudoesnotconsistofthegroupsofcriollos andforeignerswhoinhabitthestripoflandbetweenthePacificandtheAndes;itisthegreat numbersofIndiansscatteredacrosstheeasternbandofthecordillerawhoconstitutethenation." Thishasprovidedtheimpetusforstudiesbysocialscientistsandeducatorsinthelasttwenty years(Bonilla,1981;Coder,1978;Spalding,1974). ThegrowthinurbanareashasconfirmedtheideathatthesouthernmountainsinPeruwere thoughtofasthe"Indianblot."Thismeantthattherewasadichotomybetweentheareas dominatedbymodernism(representedbythecities,andparticularlythecoast)andthe indigenousareas(mainlyinthemountainsandcountryside).Asaresult,thegroupknownasthe CentenarioGenerationaroseinoppositiontothesocalledNovecientosGeneration.Although thisclashwassimplistic,itprovidedtheturningpointinthetransitionfromaHispanisttoamore indigenistorintegrationistattitude.Thatis,incontrasttosuchnamesasJosdelaRivaAguero, JulioC.Tello,orVctorAndrsBelaundeappearthoseofLuisE.Valcrcel,JosUrielGarca, andJorgeBasadrewhoundertookthetaskofdescribingthenationalrealityand,withinthat reality,theAndeanroleinwhichtheSierraisseenastheactualizedexpressionofacultureand languagesinaregionalandrepublicanframework.TheconcernsoftheCenten 383

arioGenerationwerecarriedoverintocontemporarypoliticalcurrentsbyVictorRulRayadela TorreandJosCarlosMaritequi. Therefore,languagessuchasQuechua(initsseveralvarieties)andAymara(withfewerspeakersand varieties,andmorerestrictedgeographically)begantobeofinteresttoothersbesidesEuropeanand NorthAmericantravelers.Inaddition,theybegantobestudiedfromtheperspectiveofwhathas beencalledcontemporarydescriptivelinguistics.Similarly,theinventoryanddescriptionofthe ethnicgroupsoftheSelvawereoriginallyundertakenbythemissionaries,andonlyafterthe1950s weretheystudiedwithmodernlinguisticmethods.Thesechanges,alongwithdevelopmentsin PeruviansocietyandtheappreciationofPerubystudentsofhistoryandothersocialsciences, includinglinguistics,asanobjectforreflectionandstudy,ledtoawatershedinthe1960s,which includedpoliticalaction.Notsurprisingly,atthatpointtheolddualistlineofthoughtwascalled intoquestion,andtheoriesofdomination,marginalism,andtheconceptoftheinternalcolonywere examinedinadditiontothevariousMarxistlinesofthought(CerrnPalomino,1981). Sincethen,thedefinitionofthelanguageproblemhasbeenlinkedtotheentiresocialcontextas wellastothemothertongue/secondlanguagedifference(particularlySpanishversusthe vernacular).Inthisregard,itisimportanttopointoutthatlinguisticsasadisciplinespecially committedtotherecognitionofthenonSpanishspeechsystemsofthecountryhasincreasingly demonstratedthesignificanceofitsfindingsforeducation,bothintheteachingofsecondlanguages andinthecomprehensionoftheirroleinthemosaicofSouthAmericanlanguagesandtheir usefulnessinbilingualeducationasanelementthatreinforcesanewmodelofunderstandingthe nationalidentitythroughaprudentandcarefulperceptionofthelanguageproblemintheAndean region.(Heretheterm"Andeanregion"referstothecentralareaoftheAndes,thatis,Ecuador, Peru,andBolivia.)("MesaRedondasobreelMonolingismoQuechuayAymaraylaEducacinen elPeru,"sponsoredbyCasadelaCulturadelPeru,chairedbyJosMaraArguedas,November20 24,1963.Theproceedingswerepublishedthreeyearslater.) Theachievementsmadeinbilingualeducationwillbeoutlinedlaterinthischapter.Whatneedsto bementionedhereisthatfromamarginalscientificandpedagogicalposition,everythingrelatedto languagesasafactorinidentity,fromthe1960son,hasacquiredawelldeservedsignificanceand hasprovidedtheimpetusforaseriesoflegalchanges.Thesechangescreatedanexplicitlinguistic policyin1972andanationalpolicyforbilingualeducation.Thispolicywithitsvariationscanbe tracedtothepresenttimethroughthenewConstitutionandaseriesoflegal,political,andsocial indicatorsthatdemonstratehowsocialchangeisattractingtheattentionofpoliticiansandscholars. Urbanizationandthespreadofnationwidecommunications(printmedia,radio,andtelevision)have givenanimportancetolinguisticphenomenaandsemioticcodeswhichhashelpeddiscreditthe longestablishedopinionthatPeruwasmonolingualoratleasttheofficialcultureandthat disregardedtheemergingstrengthofthose 384

peopleswhoexpressedthemselvesinotherlanguagesandwhocouldincludebilingualsor monolingualsinsomeareasofthecountry.Forthem,Spanishwasnotthematernallanguage,and thetypeofSpanishaccessibletothemwasnotcompatiblewithacademicstandardsorwithnorms supposedlyestablishedbyLimanSpanish. TheexplosivegrowthofLimaandsomeoftheprovincialcitieshashighlightedtheimportanceof "cholofication."Thereisnolongeranydebateontheincreasinglyclearimportanceofthepopular strata.Originatingmainlyinthehinterlands,theyhaveincorporatedthemselvesintourbanlifewith allthetrappingsofaregionalculturewhichisfosteringakindofnewarticulationinmusic,food, theeconomy,language,anddance.Contrarytopreviousbeliefs,thisculturesupportstheuseofa modelofdiversityasapossiblewaytoconceptualizenationalunity.Thismodelwouldincludean attitudeofrespectnotonlytowardAmerindianlanguages,butalsotowardregionalstandardsof PeruvianSpanish,aswellasamoreflexiblewrittenstandardforSpanish.Itwouldreflectasociety inwhichSpanishspeakerscoexistwithspeakersofotherlanguagesandinwhichexceptfora nondominantgrouptheteachingofSpanishis,inthefinalanalysis,theteachingofasecond language.Fromthisstandpoint,bilingualeducationshouldbeviewedastheusualwaytoteach SpanishintheelementaryandpublicschoolsofPeru. BILINGUALEDUCATION ThecurrentConstitutionofPeru(1979)indicatesthatSpanishistheofficiallanguageofthe Republic.ItrecognizesQuechuaandAymaraaslanguagesthatmaybeusedofficiallyintheareas andwaysestablishedbylaw,anditdeclarestheremainingaboriginallanguagestobethecultural patrimonyofthenation(Balln,1983).ThiscuriousarticleofthePeruvianCartaMagna(Article 83)undeniablyseparatesSpanish,Quechua,andAymarafromtheremaininglanguages,thatis, thoseoftheSelva.InArticle35,thestatedeclaresthatitwillpromotethestudyandknowledgeof theaboriginallanguages,anditguaranteestoQuechua,Aymara,andothernativecommunitiesthe righttoaprimaryeducationinthenativelanguage.Besidescontainingotherwording,Articles83, 35,and34didawaywiththenationalofficialstatusgrantedtoQuechuabyDecreeLawNo.21156, promulgatedonMay27,1975,bythemilitarygovernmentofGeneralVelascoAlvarado. Therefore,thepresentConstitutionrecognizesthatPeruseekstoachieveintegrationbymeansofa generallanguage,Spanish,butthatotherlanguagesalsoexist,amongwhichQuechuaandAymara areofhistoricalandquantitativeimportance.Itacknowledgestheirplacewithinthecontextofa contactsituationinvariousAndeanareasofthecountry.Whenotherlanguagesarereferredtoas aboriginal,thelanguagesoftheSelvaorAmazon,ratherthanQuechuaorAymara,cometomind. Consequently,evenwithrespecttolanguage,ithasnotbeenpossibleinthelongruntosuppressthe recognitionofPeru'sculturaland 385

linguisticpluralism.ThereseemstobeanadmissionthatPeruisnotaunilingualcountry.Although Spanishisthemostwidespreadlanguageandoffersthewidestscopefornationalandinternational communication,thereisgreaterawarenessthatmanypeoplespeakalanguageotherthanSpanishas theirmaternallanguageandthattherestillexistmonolingualswhoknowtheoraluseofSpanish. Obviously,bilingualeducationisrecognizedandsanctioned,butcuriouslythereisnopolicyfor bilingualeducation,norhastherebeenachangeintheregulationsoftheformerlaw,alsodecreed bythemilitarygovernment. Incontrast,bilingualeducationhasbeengivenspecialconsiderationintheAmazonregion,perhaps becauseofitsantiquity.AnagreementsignedbytheMinistryofEducationwiththeSummer InstituteofLinguistics(1979),andlaterwiththeWorkoftheVicariateofSanJosdeAmazonas andtheCAAAP(CentroAmazonicodeAntropologiayAplicacionPracticaAmazonCenterfor AnthropologyandPracticalApplication)hasbeeninexistenceinthisregionsince1952. Subsequently,experimentswerecarriedoutintheSierrabytheUniversityofSanMarcosandin PunoafteranagreementbetweenthePeruviangovernmentandtheOfficeofGermanTechnical Assistance.Acommentaryontheseprojectswillbeofferedbelow.Whattheyhaveincommonis theirexperimentalcharacterandtheirconnection(inpart)tothenormalsystemofthecountry, althoughtheydiffersomewhatwithintheirrespectivegeographicareas.Inaddition,theyfocuson theschoolandeducation,and,mostofall,oncommunitydevelopment. ForunderstandingtheethnicandlinguisticdiversityoftheAmazonregion,apertinentreferenceis theAtlasdecomunidadesnativas(ChirifandMora,1977).Thisworkgivesanideaofthehistory andlocationofthevariousgroupsofnativecommunities,aswellasthefluvialcontext(themost suitablemeansofrepresentingtheirlocationintheSelva).AlsousefulisaworkbyD.Ribeiroand M.R.Wise,LosgruposdelaAmazonaPeruana(1978),inwhichtheyears1900and1975are comparedforpopulationanddegreeofcontactwith,orisolationfrom,mestizogroupsandthe institutionsofnationalsociety.ItconcludesthattheethnicgroupsofthePeruvianSelvabelongto twelvelinguisticfamiliesArahuaca,Cahuapana,Harakumbet,Huitoto,Jibaro,Pano,PebaYagua, Quechua,Tacana,Tucano,TupiGuarani,andZaparo.Thestatisticspertainingtotheaboriginal populationoftheSelvaare,asalreadynoted,theleastreliableofthenationalcensusdata.However, the1972censuspreparedbytheBureauofAnalysisoftheMinistryofEducationestimatedthatfor 1981,5percent(i.e.,250,229persons)ofthetotalpopulationspeakingavernacularlanguagewould speakoneofthelanguagesfromtheSelva. WithrespecttothelinguisticfamiliesoftheSierra,twoarerecognizedProtoQuechuaandProto Aru(orJaqi).ThetypesofQuechuapresentlyspokeninPeruaredescendedfromthese reconstructions.BothG.Parker(1963)andA.Torero(1964,1974)haveconcludedthatthe dialectaldiversityofQuechuacanbeexplainedintermsofadistincthistoricalaxiswhichwas originallysituatedinthecentralzoneandwhichdisplacedtheArufamilytowardthesouth.Thisis provedbythesurvivalofthesmallislandsofJaqaruandKawkiinthe 386

DepartmentofLima,farremovedfromthelargerAymaraareasinsouthernPeru,aroundPunoand Tarata(Hardman,1975,1983;Briggs,1976)andfromtheAymaracenterinBolivia.Cerrn Palomino(1982b:21342)presentsadetailedpictureofthevarioushypothesesconcerningthe assumedcommonoriginofthetwofamilies.However,hisargumentsleavenodoubtthata relationshipbetweenQuechuaandAymaramustberejected,eventhoughstructuralsimilarities evidentlyexistandsemanticandlexicalborrowingscanbeexplainedonthebasisoftheancient contactbetweenthelanguages. AsforthebilingualprojectsimplementedintheQuechuaarea,thebestknownandmost distinguishedhavebeentheexperimentslastingseveralyears,incontrasttoshorttermprojectsnow rememberedonlyinspecializedarticlesandreports(MinisteriodeEducacin,1966.1972,1973). OfcurrentinterestistheexperimentcarriedoutinHuamanga,andresumedperiodicallywith varyingobjectivesandresultsintheongoingprojectsponsoredbytheUniversityofSanMarcos throughCILA(CentrodeInvestigacindeLingusticaAplicadaCenterforResearchinApplied Linguistics)intheDepartmentofAyacucho(Ziga,1982;Burns,1971).Apartfromthiseffort, whichwasinitiatedbyaPeruvianuniversitywithforeignhelpandincollaborationwiththe Ministry(since1963),themostinnovativeandextensiveundertakingintermsofduration, diversityoflanguages,andnumberofparticipatingschools,students,andteachersisthePuno Project,whichatthiswritingextendstothesixthgrade.Thisprojecthasbeencarriedoutin collaborationwithINIDE(InstitutoNacionaldeInvestigacinyDesarrollodelaEducacin NationalInstituteofEducationalResearchandDevelopmentandtheGermangovernmentsince 1978(ArandaandSanchez,1982;Lpez,1984). CONCLUSIONS ItwouldappearthatbilingualeducationinPeru,fragmentedbyregionandbyschool,hasnot fulfilledtheexpectationsofitsfounders,who,indifferenttimesandplaces,undertookthis improbabletask.Thatis,theresultsofbilingualeducationarenotcompletelysatisfactoryand depend,ingreatdegree,onpsychosocial,political,andeconomicconditionsandtheirrelationship tothepublicsystemofthestate.Asatheory,bilingualeducationisindeedworthyofdefense,butin termsofachievementitisnottotallyjustifiable.Thesamehasoccurredintheareasofsocialand sexualdiscrimination.Theseareancientanduniversalproblemsofhumankind,whichdefyreason inthefaceoftheirrational. Howeverusefulandadvantageoustheresultsmaybe,theoutcomeinboththeSelvaandtheSierra (includingPuno,inspiteofitstrilingualpublications,teachermanuals,andethnoliterarystudies) doesnotconcealtheenormousdifferencebetweenthebilingualschoolandtheunilingualschool (eitherpublicorprivate).Inaddition,itisevidentthatincountrieslikePeru,theprivateschool performsasignificantportionoftheeducationalwork,andthattheruraltourbanmigrationhas resultedinasubstantialdeficiencyintheuseoftheofficial 387

languagebylowerandmiddleclasses,andbyteachersaswellasstudents.Thisisnotasituation thataffectsonlysmallareasorafewthousandpeople,butiswidelydiffusedthroughoutthe country,frombottomtotop.Thisproblemisdistinctfromtheproblemofbilingualeducation.As pointedoutbythisauthorin1963andmorerecentlybyI.PozziEscot(1984),whenSpanishis saidtobethemostwidespreadlanguageinPeruandtoencompassthehighestpercentageof speakers,itisutopiantooverlookthefactthatformanyofthosespeakers,itshouldbetaughtas asecondlanguage.AslongasawaytotransformtheteachingofSpanishintheentirecountryis notfound,languageinstructionwillmeetwithdiminishingreturns,fortworeasons:itwillnotbe abletodrawthemostappropriatepedagogicalconclusions;anditwillaccentuatethedifferences createdbyahollowsocialscalewhichvaluescertainindividualsoverothers. Inthiswriter'sopinion,thesmallamountofstudyallottedtoAmericanandPeruvianSpanishis notduesimplytothetechnicaldeficienciesofourspecialists,buttotheideologywhichderived fromthecolonialeraandwhichdominatesPeruviannationalsocietyandtherulingclasses (Escobar,1978).Aslongasbilingualeducationisdirectedonlytomonolingualindigenous groupsoftheSelvaandtheSierra,therewillbekeencompetitiontoabandonbilingualschoolsin favorofregular,nonbilingualschools,andaconcomitanthighdropoutrate.Althoughmany childrenandadultsatvariouslevelscanbenefitfrominstructioninlanguageandothersubjects (bothinandoutoftheclassroom),itmustberealizedthateducationalcontenthingesonpolitical alternativesandthesealternativesinvolvedecisionsregardingeducationalandlinguistic planning.Neitheralawnoraneducationalpolicycanchangethesocialrealityofacountry,but theycanundoubtedlyopenthewayforfundamentalchangesinthestructureofsociety,thereby makingitmoreamenabletotheideaofgreateraccesstomaterialgoodsandrightsinthe contemporaryworld.Therefore,inordertobeunderstoodinregionssuchastheAndean, bilingualeducationmustbetransformedintothestandardwayofteachinglanguageonanational scale.Ifthisisnotdone,itisdoubtfulasdemonstratedbythecompletedstudiesand evaluationsthatitwilldivestitselfoftheexperimentalandinconsistentqualitythathas characterizedittodate(PozziEscot,1972aandb,1984;Engle,1973;Dutcher,1982;Escobar, 1983). BIBLIOGRAPHY ArandaE.,andR.Sanchez.1982."ExperienciasdeEducacinBilingeenproblemasquechuas yaymarasdelasreasruralesdePuno."Cuadernosdeinformacineducacional.INIDE,pp.11 40. BallnE.1983."MultiglosiaypoderdeexpresinenlaSociedadPeruana."Educaciny LingsticaenlaAmazonaPeruana,comp.A.Corbera.Lima:CAAAP,pp.1727. BonillaH.1981."ClasespopularesyEstadoenelcontextodelacrisiscolonial."La independenciaenelPer.2ded.Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos,pp.13 69 . 388

BriggsL.T.1976."AlgunosrasgosdialectalesdelaymaradeBoliviaydelPer."NotasyNoticias Lingisticas3(JulyAugust):78.LaPaz:InstitutoNacionaldeEstudiosLingisticos,pp.119. BurgaM.,andA.FloresGalindo.1979.Apogeoycrisisdelarepblicaaristocrtica.Lima: RikchayPeru,pp.155266. BurnsD.1971.CincoaosdeeducacinbilingeenlosAndesdelPer19651970.Lima:Instituto LinguisticodeVerano. CasadelaCulturadelPer.1966.MesaredondasobreelMonolingismoquechuayaymarayla educacinenelPer.Lima. CentrodeEstudiosparaelDesarrolloylaParticipacin(CEDEP).1979.Per:Identidad Nacional.Lima. CerrnR.Palomino1981."Aprendercastellanoenuncontextoplurilinge."Lexis5,1(July):39 51. .1982a."LacuestinlingisticaenelPeru."AuldQuechua.Lima:SignoUniversitario,pp. 10523. .1982b."Elproblemadelarelacinquechuaaru:Estadoactual."Lexis6,2:21342. ChirifA.,andC.Mora.1977.Atlasdecomunidadesnativas.Lima:SINAMOS. CotlerJ.1978.Clases,estadoynacinenelPer.Lima:IEP. CotlerJ.,etal.1984."CaractersticassocialesdelossectorespopularesdeLima."Ms.Proyectode investigacinurbanizacinysectorespopularesurbanos.Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. DutcherN.1982.TheUseofFirstandSecondLanguagesinPrimaryEducation:SelectedCase Studies.Washington,D.C.:WorldBankStaffWorkingPaperNo.504. EngleP.L.1973."TheUseofVernacularLanguagesinEducation:Revisited."Ms.Universityof IllinoisatChicagoCircle. EscobarA.1968."PresentStateofLinguistics.CurrentTrendsinLinguistics."IV:IberoAmerican andCaribbeanLinguistics.TheHague:Mouton,pp.61627. .1975."LaeducacinbilingeenelPer."ProceedingsoftheFirstInteramericanConference onBilingualEducation.Arlington,Va.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics,pp.3442. .1978.VariacionessociolingsticasdelcastellanoenelPer.Lima:InstitutodeEstudios Peruanos. .1983."Fundamentoslingsticosypedaggicosdelaenseanzadeunasegundalenguaen poblacionesindgenas."Educacin,EtnasyDescolonizacinenAmricaLatina.Unaguaparala educacinbilingeintercultural.Vol.2.Mxico:UNESCO,pp.315339. EscobarA.,comp.1972.ElretodelmultilinguismoenelPeru.ContainingessaysbyEscobar, Hardman,Torero,Parker,PozziEscot,CerronPalomino,d'Ans,Wolck,GonzalesMoreyra, Aliaga,andEscribens.Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. EscobarA.,etal.1975.Perpaisbilinge?Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. GalinP.,O.Castillo,andJ.Carrin.1985."ClasesPopularesyAsalariadosenLima."Ms.Lima: InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. HardmanM.1975."Eljaqaru,elkawkiyelaymara."ActasdelSimposiodeMontevideo,Enerode 1966.Mxico,pp.18592. .1983(1966).Jaqaru:compendiodeestructurafonolgicaymorfolgica.TheHague:

Mouton. HeathS.B.,andR.Laprade.1982."CastilianColonizationandIndigenousLanguages:TheCases ofQuechuaandAymara." 389

TheCasesofQuechuaandAymara."LanguageSpread:StudiesinDiffusionandSocialChange. Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,pp.11847. InstitutoLingsticodeVerano.1979.EducacinBilinge.UnaexperienciaenlaAmazona Peruana.Lima:IgnacioPradoPastor. LpezL.E.1984."Tengounamuecavestidadeazul."Autoeducacin,Nos.1011:4550. MinisteriodeEducacin.1972.PrimerSeminarioNacionaldeEducacinBilinge,Algunos EstudiosyPonencias.Lima. .1972.PolticaNationaldeEducacinBilinge.Lima. .1972.ReglamentodeProgramasdePromocinEducativaparalasAreasRurales.Lima. :.1973.ReglamentodeEducacinBilinge.Lima. ParkerG.1963."Laclassificacingenticadelosdialectosquechuas."RevistadelMuseo Nacional32:24152. PozziEscot1.1972."LasituacinlingsticaenelPerysurepercusinenlaenseanzadel castellanoenlazonaandina."Ph.D.diss.,NationalUniversityofSanMarcos,Lima. .1984."ElcastellanocomosegundalenguaenelPer."CieloAbierto10,No.30:3746. RibeiroD.,andM.R.Wise.1978.LosgruposdelaAmazonaPeruana.Lima:Instituto LinguisticodeVerano. SpaldingK.1974.Deindio,acampesino.Lima:InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos. SuarezJ.1968."ClassicalLanguages.CurrentTrendsinLinguistics."IV:IberoAmericanand CaribbeanLinguistics.TheHague,Paris:Mouton,pp.25474. SuarezR.1979."PoblacinyfuerzalaboralenelPer:revisinmetodolgicaeimplicancias." Economa2,4:65146. ToreroA.1964."Losdialectosquechuas."AnalescientficosdelaUNA,No.2:446478. .1974.Elquechuaylahistoriasocialandina.Lima:UniversidadRicardoPalma. UgarteM.A.Chamorro1961."LuchaentornoalaoficializacindelcastellanoenelPeru." Sphinx2,14:10125. ZnigaM.1982."Unprogramaexperimentaldeeducacinbilingequechuacastellanoen Ayacucho."AulaQuechua.Lima:SignoUniversitario,pp.25777. 390

20 S.Gopinathan BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATIONINSINGAPORE Singapore,situatedataboutIdegreenorthoftheequator,liesatthecenterofSoutheastAsia. Deniedanysignificantnaturalresourcesexceptastrategicgeographicallocationandenterprising migrants,thissmallrepublichasemergedinrecentyearsasamajorregional,financial, commercial,communication,andtouristcenter.Althoughthephysicaldimensionsarepaltry Singaporehasalandextentofonly570.4squarekilometersandapopulationof2.5millionthe politicalandeconomicindicatorsareimpressive.Singaporeisoftenquotedasanexampleof politicalstabilityandadministrativeefficiency.Itspercapitagrossnationalproduct(GNP)atUS 5,900issecondonlytothatofJapaninAsia,itistheworld'ssecondbusiestport,ithasa registeredunemployedrateof0.6percentoftheworkforce,anditsfinancialreservesrankitas theeleventh"richest"countryintheworld. ThetrulyremarkablethingabouttheSingaporesuccessstoryisthatitcouldsoeasilyhavegone wrong.Singaporebeganitsmarchtowardsuccessasapluralsocietywithracialgroupswhich, whennotignorantofoneanotherwerehostiletooneanother.WhenStamfordRafflesfounded thesettlementin1819,therewerefewerthantwohundredinhabitants.Extensivesettlement beganonlyinthemidnineteenthcenturywhenathrivingentrepoteconomyunderBritish controlattractedmigrantsfromnearandfar.Today,Singapore'spopulationcontinuestobe ethnicallymixedwiththeChineseat76.7percent,Malaysat14.7percent,Indiansat6.4percent, andothersat2.2percent.Singapore'smigranthistoryisreflectedinthe20percentofcitizens whowerebornoutsideSingapore.Anewphenomenonisthepresenceofnearlyonehundredand fiftythousand"guestworkers,"singlemenandwomenfromsuchareasasKorea,thePhilippines, Thailand,India,SriLanka,andMalaysia. Asmightbeexpected,Singapore'smigrantscomefromavarietyofcountries 391

andregions.TheChinesecomefromanumberofsouthernChineseprovinces,withtheHokkiensat 43percent,Teochewsat22percent,andCantoneseat17percentpredominating.FortheIndians, TamilsfromTamilNadupredominateat63.9percent,Malayalisare8.1percent,andPunjabis7.8 percent.ThevastmajorityofMalays(69percent)arefromPeninsularMalaysia,whiletheJavanese andBoyanesemakeup18and11percent,respectively. ThepatternoflanguagesusedinSingaporereflectsthisdiversityoforigin.C.Y.Kuo(1980:40) usesDankwartRustow'scharacterizationof"avarietyofunrelatedlanguageseachwithitsown literarytradition"asbeingappropriateforSingapore,andnotesthatthe1957censusidentifies thirtythreespecificmothertonguegroups,withtwentyreportedtohavemorethanonethousand speakers.A1978estimateofthepopulationagedfifteenandovernotedthatHokkien,Teochew,and Cantonesecouldbeunderstoodby77.9,59.7,and63.2percentofthepopulation,respectively. However,Mandarin(seeChapter9),theschoollanguage,isspokenbylessthan1percentofthe population.ThefigureclaimedforMalaywas67.3percentandforTamil6percent.Englishwas understoodby61.7percentofthepopulation.ThefiguresforMalayandEnglisharehighfor differentreasons.Malayiswidespreadbecauseofitsfunctionasalinguafranca,usedtovarying degreesofcompetencebyallthreeethnicgroups;theincreasedcompetenceinEnglishismore recentandisattributabletothepostwarspreadofEnglishmediumschooling. Addingtothecomplexitycausedbylanguagevarietyareotherfactors.WiththeChinesethe problemlieswiththedegreeofincomprehensibilitybetweendialects,althoughthewrittenscript givesthelanguageunity.However,aswenotedearlier,theschooldialectisMandarin,spokenasa mothertonguebylessthanIpercentoftheChinesepopulation.TheIndianshavetocopewith severaldistinctlanguageswithdifferentwritingsystems,buttheschoollanguageisTamil.The Malaysfacetheproblemofarapidlyevolvinglanguage,withextensiveborrowingsfromEnglish, buttheuseoftheRomanscriptmaybesaidtolessentheeducationalburden.English,asthe metropolitanlanguage,wastreatedasanotherofficiallanguageinthe1950sbuthasnowemergedas thedefacto"nationallanguage"displacingthedejurenationallanguage,Malay. HISTORICALBACKGROUND Asnotedearlier,Singaporeisamigrantsociety.The1871censusshowedthatmigrationhadbeen extensive,fortherewerealready54,572Chinese,26,148Malays,11,501Indians,2,000Eurasians, andasprinklingofArabs,Siamese,andFilipinos.Theratiobetweentheethnicgroupstendedto fluctuatetheMalayswere26.9percentofthepopulationin1871butitseemsfromearlyonthat theChinesewouldpredominate.Theimmigrationflowswerealsoaffectedbycolonialgovernment interventions,as,forexample,viatheassistedrepatriationschemeduringthe1930depressionand theAliensOrdinanceof1933whichtheBritishusedtocontroltheflowofimmigration.Thepull factors 392

encouragingmigrationwerestrong,however.Singapore'sstatusasafreeportledrapidlyto economicgrowth.ThegrowthoftherubberandtinindustriesinMalayaandSingapore'sroleasa processorofrawmaterialswereimportantfactors. PrewarSingaporehasbeencharacterizedasapluralsocietywhoseprimarycharacteristicwas "culturaldistinctivenessassociatedwithextensivesocialandspatialsegregation"(Chiew,1983:30). Britishcolonialpolicies,bypracticeratherthanbydesign,keptthepluralsocietyintact.The verticalcleavageswerebothsharpanddistinctive.Thethreemajorethnicgroupsweredividedin termsoflanguage,religion,economicspecialization,andhabitation.Englishmediumeducation, availableonlytoasmallnumber,wasafurtherdividingfactor,splittingtheChinesecommunity downthemiddle;theMalaysintheirturnshunnedEnglishmediumeducationwhichwaslargely churchsponsoredforfearofreligiousconversion. Thecensusreportsfor1931and1947providesomeinsightintothedegreeoflinguistic communicability.The1931censusshowedthatonly28.2percentcouldspeakEnglish,the administrativelanguage;theIndiansat14.1percentmadeupalmosthalfthetotal.Thepercentages werelittleimprovedin1947when33percentclaimedtheabilitytoreadandwriteasimpleletterin English.Censusdatafor1931alsoshowedthedegreeofeconomicspecialization.TheChinesewere concentratedinclericalandprofessionaloccupationsat31.2percentandincommerceandfinance at23.6percent;theMalaysintransportandcommunicationsat31.2percentandinagricultureat 30.5percent;whilealmosthalftheemployedIndians,50.3percent,wereinclericalandprofessional services(Chiew,1983:30).Participationineducationalsorevealsasimilarpatternofsegregation. Bythistimeafourstreamsystemofeducationhademerged;English,Chinese,Malay,andTamil schools.TheEnglishandChineseschoolswerethemostextensivewithbothelementaryand secondarydivisions;theMalayandTamilstreamswereweakestintermsofpupils,resources,and standards.Statisticsaresomewhatspotty,butitisestimatedthatin1938therewerethirtythree Englishmediumschoolswithanenrollmentof14,592students.Itwasestimatedthattherewere215 Chinesemediumschoolswithanenrollmentof13,315students.TherewereapparentlyfiveTamil schoolswithanenrollmentof156pupils(Wilson,1978:5254,64). Astheabovesuggests,thereexistedalinkbetweenethnicpluralismandsocietaldifferentiation.In colonialSingapore,therewasanunequaldistributionofaccesstowealth,status,andpower. Educationparticularlythemediumofinstructionandtheconsequencesarisingfromaccessand achievementinthedifferentmedia,hadconsiderableimpactonlifechances.Consequently,colonial educationpolicyandtheevaluationofthesegregatedsystemwerecentralfactorsintheincreasingly hostilerelationshipbetweentheEnglishandthevernaculareducated.Britisheducationpolicywas infavorofEnglishmediumeducationandminimalMalaymediumeducation.Chinesemedium education,ignoredbythecolonialgovernmentandonlycommunitysupported,felltotheinfluence of 393

radicalsocialreformistsfromChina.Intheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury,Chinesemedium educationbecameapoliticalweapontobeusedagainstthecolonialauthoritytheChineselanguage becameasymbolofethnicsolidarityandofculturalsuperiorityandEnglishthelanguageof oppression.WhentheBritishauthoritiesinthe1920ssoughttosuperviseChineseeducation,itwas politicalcontrolratherthanpedagogicalimprovementtheyhadinmind.Thispoliticizationof educationwasoneofthemostseriousandimmediateproblemsthatpostwargovernmentshadto face. THECONTEMPORARYSCENE BeforeweexamineSingapore'sbilingualeducationpoliciesindetail,itisimportanttounderstand thecontextwithinwhicheducationpoliciesareformulatedandimplemented.Asinmany developingcountries,educationishighlyvaluedinSingapore,bothfromthegovernment perspectivethatstressesbothpersonnelconsiderationsandthemaintenanceofculturaland linguisticheritages,andfromtheindividual'sperspectiveofeducationasaninvaluableavenueof socialmobility.EducationiscurrentlythesecondlargestexpenditureitemintheSingaporebudget, andnearlyhalfamillionstudentsareenrolledineducationalinstitutions. Thegovernment,havingachievedameasureofpoliticalstabilityandeconomicgrowthand diversification,seeksprimarilytoensurethecontinuanceofsuchtrends.Theprincipalstrategyis increasedcentralizationofauthority,anemphasisonrationalizationandcosteffectivemanagement, andasteadyerosionofthelegitimacyofsubgroups,clans,castes,andsoon.Onthepoliticalfront, thereisasearchforsuitablesecondechelonleadersandaconcernthatthedisruptivecommunal politicsofthe1950sand1960swillnotberepeated.Thecurrentleadership,forinstance,deemsthe issuesofmediumofinstruction,culturalidentity,andinterethnicrelationshipsassettledquestions. Ontheeconomicfront,thegovernmentisseekingtomoveSingaporeintohightechnology industries,topromoteSingaporeasaregionalcenterforbanking,oilrefining,andcommunications, andtoincreasetherangeanddepthofSingapore'sinternationalconnections. Education,talent,andanopennesstointernationalideasandknowledgearethusheavilystressed. Increasingemphasisisplacedonthescientificcontentoftertiaryeducationandontechnical vocationaleducationopportunitiesforpostsecondaryeducation,forinstance,arebeingexpanded. Atthesametime,itisfeltthatSingaporeneedstorecruitskilledtalentfromabroad;athome, sociallycontroversialpoliciesareinplacetoensurethereproductionoftalentanditsidentification inschools.AccesstoglobaldevelopmentsinturnissaidtobepossibleonlythroughEnglishwhich hasnowlostitscolonialidentityandhasbecomethenationallysignificantlanguage. ThegovernmentisalsoconcernedthatintherushformodernizationSingaporeansmightlosea senseofthemselvesasAsiansandbecome"decultural 394

ized."Thus,mothertonguecompetenceisstressed,andtheimportanceoflanguagetoaproper understandingandappreciationofculturaltraditionsisaprominentrationaleforbilingualeducation (Gopinathan,1979,1980).Inthelastcoupleofyears,thegovernmenthasbeguntoimplementan extensiveprogramofmoraleducationinelementaryandlowersecondaryclasses;attheupper secondarylevel,studentsaretobeofferedachoiceofreligiouseducationcurricula. BELINGUALISM:SOCIETALDIMENSIONS ThegoalsforlanguagepolicyinSingaporecanbestbeunderstoodbykeepinginmindthesocietal imperativesthegovernmentofthedayfaced.Twokeyfactorsstandout.First,asaconsequenceof colonialrule,Singaporedevelopedasapluralsocietyandhadahistoryofinterethnictension. Second,therewasneedforrapideconomicandsocialdevelopmenttomeettheneedsofayoung andgrowingpopulation.Bothchallengesweremetbyapoliticalsystemthathadapronounced degreeofcentralizationandwaspreparedtoengageinextensivesocialengineeringtobringabout orderlysocialchange.Thestrategywastowinlegitimacytoanachievementoriented, nonparticularisticelite,tobuildnewinstitutionsandinstitutenewprocessestoentrenchsupportive brokers,andtoisolatethoseseenasoverlycommittedtoethnicbasedloyalties.Crucialtothis strategywaslanguagepolicy,bothinandoutofeducation.Asdescribedbelow,inSingapore languagewastobeauniquelyfruitfulinstrumentintheprocessofmoldingtheSingaporeidentity. Thefirstgoal,giventhemultilingualnatureofSingaporesociety,wasforalanguagepolicythat wouldcontributetointegrationbypromotinginterethniccommunication.Therewassome awarenessduringcolonialrulethatsomemeansforlinguisticinteractionmustbefound,anditwas assumedthatEnglishhadmostpotentialasalinklanguage.Thispolicywasdoomedtofailure, however,becausethecolonialauthoritywasnotpreparedtoexpandEnglishmediumschoolingand because,after1920,asizableproportionoftheChinesepreferredChinesemediumeducation.The governmentthenfaced,andsucceeded,inbuildingChinesesecondaryschools,trainingteachers, andthelike.Itwasnotuntil1956whenTheReportoftheCommitteeonChineseEducationwas issuedthattheprincipleofequaltreatmentforallschoollanguagesandsocietalbilingualismwas accepted.Thus,apolicyofsocietalandeducationalbilingualismisoneresponsetotheproblemof linguisticpluralism.Thoughtherewasbroadagreementforthispolicy,ithasnotalwaysbeeneasy totranslatepolicyintopractice,anditwasnotuntilthelate1960sthatbilingualismbegantobe entrenchedintheeducationalsystem. Asecondaspectofthepolicyofsocietalbilingualismcanbesaidtobetheuseoflanguageasa societalresource.Itisclearfromtheliteraturethatinmanymultilingualsocietieslanguagebred hostilityisamajorsourceofsocialtensionandweakness.InSingapore'scase,theemphasishas largelybeenonmaking 395

virtueoutofnecessity.English,acoloniallanguage,anobjectofsuspicionduringtheinterwar years,hasnowbeentransformedintoa"national"language.Thistransformationhasbeenachieved byidentifyingEnglishasa"neutral"linklanguagebetweenthevariousethnicgroups,astrategyin whichthenationalgovernmentsucceededwheretheBritishhadfailed.Acrucialelementinthe government'sstrategyhasbeentheidentificationofEnglishasamajorsourceofeconomically valuableknowledgeandtechnology.Singapore'spossessionofametropolitanlanguage,itisargued, isanassetwhichsomecountrieshavesquanderedbutinSingaporeistobenurturedandreproduced soastoenableaccesstoworldmarketsandgreaterintegrationintotheworldeconomy.Asthe PrimeMinisterLeeKuanYewputit:"thedeliberatestiflingofalanguage(English)whichgives accesstosuperiortechnologycanbedamagingbeyondrepair...[and]tantamounttoblindingthe nextgenerationtotheknowledgeoftheadvancedcountries"(citedinChanandEvers,1978). Thepositionasregardsthemothertonguescanalsobesaidtoillustratethenotionoflanguageas resource,thoughthereasonsforretainingthemaredifferentlystated.Twostrandsmaybeidentified. OnestrandiswhatC.Pendley(1983)termsthefunctionoflanguageas"moralintegratorsand sourcesofsymbolicidentification."Thismaybesaidtohavegreatsignificanceattheindividual level,andinarecentspeechthePrimeMinisterunderlinedthisdimension: Tohavenoemotionallyacceptablelanguageasourmothertongueistobeemotionally crippled.Weshalldoubtourselves.Weshallbelessconfident....This[Mandarin]isa deepandstrongpsychicforce,onethatgivesconfidencetoapeopletofaceuptoand overcomegreatchangesandchallenges...tolookatChinesecharacters,seethemas mysterioushieroglyphicsistobepsychologicallydisadvantaged(StraitsTimes, September22,1984). Onecouldargueaswellforsocietallevelsignificance.Asnotedearlier,overtheyearsthe governmenthassoughttoshapeavisionofSingaporeasarational,modernizingsocietybutwithout losingasenseofitsoriginsintheEastanditsfundamentalnatureasanAsiansociety.Singaporeans areoftentoldthatWesterncountrieshavelostasenseofmoralpurpose,thatsocietalintegrationis eroding,andthatSingaporeshouldavoidthatpathandlookinsteadtocountrieslikeJapan.Thus, theuseofethnicheritage,andparticularlylanguage,isseenasabulwarkagainstvicesthat internationalcontactandtheextensiveuseofEnglishmightbring. Asecondaspectworthnotingisthatrapidsocialchangebringswithitlossofconfidence,power, andinfluenceforgroupsasmuchasforindividuals.AsSingaporemovestowardamore bureaucraticandcentralizedadministrativestructurewithaneconomydominatedbymultinationals andpowerinthehandsofanEnglisheducatedtechnocraticelite,traditionalpowerbrokerslike familyfirms,clanassociations,newspapers,andlanguageteachersunions,previously 396

powerful,arelikelytofeelisolatedandsuspiciousofsuchtrendsinsociety.Theretentionand promotionofmothertonguesatthistimeislikelytoensurethatthesegroupswillhave somethingtoholdontoand,ifnotsupport,atleastacquiesceinlargescalesocialengineering. Languageisthusavaluabletoolformanagingtheeffectsofsocialdislocationbroughtaboutby modernization.Athirdaspectofthemothertongueasresource,conceptiseconomic.Hereone mayseeMandarinasplayingarolesimilartoEnglish.JustasEnglishistoberetainedtoensure accesstointernationalmarkets,Mandarinandthisispartofthereasonforencouragingtheshift fromdialectsisseenasvaluableinprovidingaccesstomarketsinMainlandChina.Wemove nowtoexaminingthetranslationoftherationalesforpolicy,bothatthenationallevelandinthe educationsystem.Inlegislativeterms,Singaporeisamultilingualsociety.Fourofficial languagesarerecognizedforuseintherepublic:Chinese,Malay,Tamil,andEnglish.In addition,Malayhasthestatusasthesolenationallanguage.IntheRepublicofSingapore IndependenceActof1965,thestatusofMalayasthenationallanguageislimitedasfollows: thatitbeintheRomanscript nopersonshallbeprohibitedorpreventedfromusingorfromteachingorlearninganyother language,and nothinginthissectionshallprejudicetherightoftheGovernmenttopreserveandsustain theuseandstudyofthelanguageofanyothercommunityinSingapore. InpracticeMalayhaslargelysymbolicandceremonialfunctions.Allfourlanguagesmaybe usedinParliament,inthelegalsystem,overthenationalbroadcastingsystem,andinthepress. BILINGUALISMINTHESCHOOLS Attheschoollevel,educationalbilingualismisnowwellentrenched.Allstudentsarerequiredto takeasecondlanguage,andthatsecondlanguageismostoftenamothertongue.Concernwith poorlevelsofbilingualattainmentledin1979totheintroductionofdifferenttracks,primarily characterizedbydifferinglanguagecompetencerequirementsinthefirstandsecondlanguage. Suchtrackingbeginsasearlyasthethirdyearofelementaryschool.Thestressonminimum levelsofcompetencereachesrightuptouniversityentrance.Overandabovesuitableacademic qualifications,studentsarerequiredtopossessminimumlevelsofbilingualcompetenceorto attainitbeforegraduation.Ingeneral,thetrendseemstohavebeentowardlowering requirementsformothertonguecompetencewhileholdingstandardsforEnglishhigh. Asecondsignificantfeatureofthelanguagepolicyineducationisthatparentshavefreechoice inthemediumofinstruction.Althoughthischoicewasexercisedmostextensivelyinthe1960s, todaymostparentsareoptingforEnglishmediumschoolswherethemothertonguesareoffered assecondlanguages.Itisexpected 397

thatby1987therewillbeasinglenationalstreamusingEnglishasthemediumofinstruction.This isanunexpectedoutcomeofapolicyofequaltreatment,butlargescaleeconomicchangeshave madeEnglishthemostvaluedlanguage.Itmustalsobenotedthatfreechoicehasmeantnotonlya generalshifttowardEnglish,butalsothattheIndianethnicgroupinparticularhasexercisedits choiceinawaythatdefeatsthegovernment'sobjectiveofwishingethnicgroupstoretaintheir mothertongues.Accordingtooneestimateintheearly1980s,lessthan50percentofIndianpupils offeredTamilasasecondlanguageattheelementarylevel.CaughtinasituationwhereTamilhas neitherpoliticalnoreconomicsignificance,alargenumberofIndianparentshaveoptedfortheir childrentobetaughteitherMandarinorMalayastheir"mothertongue."Theproblemisaggravated bythelogisticsofimplementingabilingualismpolicy.ToofewIndianstudentsmeansthatitis sometimesnotfeasibletoofferinstructioninTamilduringregularschoolhours;ratherthanoptfor afterschoolhoursinanotherschool,studentschooseavailablelanguages(GopinathanandMani, 1983). BILINGUALATTAINMENT InspiteofageneralconsensusoverthesignificanceanddirectionofSingapore'slanguagepolicies, inthemid1970stherewaswidespreadcriticismofchangesinpolicies,levelsofattainment, exposuretime,andthelike.Changesineconomicperformanceandopportunity,andinparticulara needtoensureminimumlevelsofnumeracyandliteracy,createdtheconditionsforareviewof educationpolicy.Thiswasundertakenin1978byateamledbytheDeputyPrimeMinister,Dr.Goh KengSwee.TheReportontheMinistryofEducation,1978providedthemostexplicitand authoritativecritiqueofSingapore'slanguagepoliciesastheyrelatedtoeducation.Amongits findings,thefollowingareofspecialimportance: LowLiteracy:Atleast25percentofthePrimarySixpopulationdidnotattainminimum literacylevels.Forearlysecondaryschoolleaversinthearmedforces,only11percentof recruitswereabletohandleEnglishcompetently. Between1975and1977,62percentofthosewhosatforthePrimarySchoolLeaving Examinationand66percentofthosewhosatfortheGCE"O"levelexamination(General CouncilonEducation,"Ordinary"asopposedto"Advanced"level)failedeitherinthefirstor secondlanguage. Onvariousmeasuresofpupilperformanceexaminations,newspapers,andbookreading studentsfaredbadly. Thereportreviewedvariousstrategiesdevisedtoimprovelanguagelevelsandfoundseveralto beineffective(GohReport,1979). Theprincipalfindingwasthattoomuchwasbeingdemandedoftoomanyintermsoflanguage competence;intheReport'swords,"thepolicyofbilingualism 398

hasnotbeenuniversallyeffective."Theprincipalrecommendationsweretracking,differentiated curricula,anddifferentexaminations. BELINGUALISMREASONSFORINEFFECTIVENESS TheproblemsofbilingualachievementinSingaporecanbetracedtoavarietyofcauses:multiracial populationofdiverseculturalandlinguisticbackgrounds;astressfullearningenvironmentinwhich languagecompetencyisallimportant;apoorunderstandingofthepedagogicalimplicationsof policies;andafailuretorecognizethepersistenceofdialects.Besides,mostpupilswerelearning twolanguageswhichtheyoftendidnotspeakathome.Finally,childrenofdifferentlanguage abilitieswerebeingsubjectedtothesameeducationprogram. Therealizationandacknowledgmentoftheseinherentdifferencesofvaryingaptitudeforlanguage learningandSingapore'slinguisticcomplexityhasledtotherecognitionthateffectivebilingualism cannotbeachievedby,andthuscannotbeexpectedof,allSingaporeans.Asaresult,theemphasis inthebilingualpolicyhasshifted.In1978,thepolicywasmodified,withincreasedemphasison proficiencyinEnglish."Theneweducationsystemwhichwillevolveovertheyearswillbeonein whichgreatprominenceisattachedtoEnglishatthecostofsomereductioninstandardsinthe mothertongue,beitMandarin,MalayorTamil."Thereasonforthisemphasisisthat"Generally pupilsfromthenonEnglishmediumschoolsloseouttothosefromtheEnglishmediumschoolsin jobopportunitiesduetotheirlackofproficiencyinEnglish"(GohReport,1979). ThisshiftinconcerncanbeattributedtothechangedstatusandroleofEnglishinSingapore.As Kuo(1976)notes,EnglishhasgainedgroundinSingapore,becomingthemostprestigiouslanguage andthevehicleforupwardsocialmobility.ThiselevatedstatusforEnglishisduetoSingapore's emergenceastheregionalcenterofbanking,trade,andcommerce.Englishisclearlythekeyto economicmodernizationanddevelopment. TwootherfeaturesuniquetoSingaporeneedmention,fortheyillustratetheproblemsofsetting objectivesinsocietaltermsandthenhavingtodealwiththeirpedagogicalimplications.Recent reformsintheeducationsystemfollowingarecognitionthatbilingualismmadetoomanydemands hasresultedinstreamingafterthethirdyearofelementaryschooling.Theweakestgroupwas streamedintoamonolingualstream,andtheinitialpolicywastomakethemcompetentintheir mothertongue.Today,however,thedemandforEnglishcompetenceissogreatthatthesestudents willnowbetaughtasimplifiedcurriculuminEnglish,theirweakerlanguage.Atthesecondary level,aproblemhasemergedoverthelanguagestobeusedforteachingmoralandreligiousstudies. Anearlierrationalizationforbilingualismstressedtheimportanceofindigenouslanguagesin transmittingculturalandmoralvalues.Languagewasseenasthemostimportantelementofculture, andsubjectssuchashistory,civics,andsocialstudiesweremarkedoutforteachinginthemother tongue.However,whilereligiousstudiesarebeingintroducedintothecurriculumsoastoenable studentsto 399

maintaintheirculturalandreligioustraditions,thegovernmentseemstohavereverseditspolicy andispushingforthesesubjectstobetaughtinEnglish,muchtothedismayoflanguage teachersassociations. SPECIALASSISTANCEPLAN(SAP) TheMinistryhasnotgivenuphopethatsomestudentsmaybeabletomanagetwolanguagesat firstlanguagelevel.OfspecialimportanceistheSpecialAssistancePlanschoolsproject.This plan,whichsawtheconversionofnineestablishedChineseschoolsintobilingualinstitutions, wasconceivedafterNanyangUniversityhadelectedtouseEnglishasitsmediumofinstruction asaresultofthesteadydeclineinenrollmentintheChinesemediumprimaryschools.SAP schools,aimedat"preparingourbrighterpupilstobeeffectivelybilingual"(Ministryof Education,1980),wastargetedatthetop8percentofthosepassingthePrimarySchoolLeaving Examination. InthecontextoftheSAPschools,effectivebilingualismisdefinedascommunicative competencetospeak,understand,respond,andreadandwriteinEnglishandMandarinatfirst languagelevel(PrimeMinisterLeeKuanYew,1978).TheSAPschoolsareprovidedwith financialassistance,specialincentives,andoptions.Yet,pupilsinthetop8percenthave generallybeenreluctanttooptfortheseschools.AnevaluationoftheSAPprogramshowsthat theobjectiveofeffectivebilingualismhasyettobeattained.Englishstillremainstheweaker languageamongthesestudents.Thus,basedontheresultsofthefirstbatchofSAPstudentsand commentspertainingtotheburdenoflearningtwolanguagesatfirstlanguagelevel,ithasbeen decidedthatstudentsbegiventheoptionofdoingonelanguageatfirstlanguagelevelandthe otheratsecondlanguagelevel. THE"SPEAKMANDARIN"CAMPAIGN Whilereviewsandrethinkingofschoolpolicieswerecomingtotheforeinthelate1970s,the governmentwasalsopreparingtointerveneatthenationallevel,tomovelanguagedevelopment inanewdirection.The"SpeakMandarinCampaign"waslaunchedinApril1978,andthePrime Ministerhasarguedthatthepersistenceofdialectuseamongschoolchildrenexplainswhy MandarinhasfailedtobecomethemorewidespreadlanguageamongtheChinese.Asecond reasonforthecampaignwasthatdialectusefragmentedtheChinesecommunityandprevented thecommonlanguage,Mandarin,fromplayingitslegitimateunifyingrole. Onceagain,thesocietallevelissueoflanguagestatusisintertwinedwiththeschoollevel problemofeffectiveattainment.ThePrimeMinisterwasrightinassertingthatthetimeand effortinvestedinteachingandexaminingMandarinintheschoolswouldbewastedifstepswere nottakentoensuretheuseofMandarinratherthandialectsinavarietyofdomains.However,the timingof 400

thecampaignmaybeviewedwithinalargercontext.Thecampaignwaslaunchedatatimewhen NanyangUniversity,thebastionofChinesetertiaryeducation,wasslowlyswitchingoverto English.Fromthisperspective,itispossibletounderstandthecampaignasabalancingmoveto reassuretheChinesecommunitythattheircohesiveness,culturalidentity,andlanguageclaims stillremainedtheprimaryconcernofthegovernment.Themovecanalsobeunderstoodinmore pragmaticterms.Itwasclearlyinefficientand"irrational"touseamultiplicityofdialectswhena highstatusvarietywasavailableandbeingtaughtintheschools.Rationalsocialandlanguage planningcalledfortheeliminationofsuchcontradictions;suchaviewwouldbeconsistentwith themodeloflanguageplanningwhichthegovernmenthasadopted. Theimplementationofthecampaignhasnotbeenwithoutattendantcontroversies.Among measurestakenhavebeenthegradualphasingoutofdialectprogramsoverradioandtelevision, theintroductionofconversationalMandarinlessonsoverradio,theorganizationofforums,panel discussions,seminarsontheSpeakMandarintheme,andapublicityblitzaimedatthose involvedinthemorecommoneverydayoccupations,hawkers,taxidrivers,busconductors, governmentservicepersonnellikepostmen,publicutilities,clerksmanninggovernment counters,andthelike.Since1980,therehasbeenacontinuingefforttogetchildrentogiveup theirdialectnameswhenregisteringforschool.Thereisalsotheclearrequirementthat governmentcitizentransactions,iftheyaredoneinChinese,shouldbeconductedinMandarin, byallthosedeemedtobeproficientinlanguage.Atalaterstage,itwasrealizedthatthefamily domainwasimportant,andsothefamily'slinguistichabitsbecamethetargetforchange. Complaintsoverthecampaignhavecomefromvariousquarters.Manydialectspeakersobjected totheclaimthatdialectsweresomehowlessChineseandincapableofcommunicatinghigh statusculture;thewithdrawalofmanyverypopulardialectprogramsovertelevisionwasstrongly criticized.AninterestingeffectoftheSpeakMandarinCampaignistheawarenessandconcernit generatedamongotherethniccommunitiesregardingtheirmothertongues.Forashortwhile,it wasfearedthattheMandarinCampaignwasaimedatallethnicgroups,thoughthiswasvery clearlynottheintention.Nevertheless,thenotionofacommonunifyinglanguagecaughtonin theIndiancommunity,whichsawashortlivedupsurgeofinterestinpromotingTamilasa commonlinklanguageandtheorganizationofvariouscompetitionsandseminarstoencourage theuseofanothertongues. Whatofthecampaign'ssuccess?Itisclearthattheearlieranxietiesaboutthecampaignfromthe dialectgroupsandtheotherethnicgroupshavebeenovercome.Inaddition,thePrimeMinister notedthatthepercentageofnewprimaryonepupilsfrompredominantlyMandarinspeaking familiesincreasedfrom26percentin1980to59percentin1984.Withinthesameperiod,the percentageofpupilsfrommainlydialectspeakingfamiliesdroppedfrom64percentto27 percent.ThePrimeMinisterhasstatedhisconvictionthatpersistingwiththecampaignfor anothertenyearswouldmeanthat"weshouldsucceedinspeaking 401

Mandarinasamatterofhabit"(SingaporeGovernment,PressRelease,September4,1984).It seemsclearthatinthelongtermtheefforttochangelanguagepreferenceswillresultinsome significantchanges.However,itneedstoberememberedthatthelargenumbersalreadyoutof theschoolsystem,stillhighlevelsofearlyschoolleavers,andasimplifiedMandarincurriculum intheschoolsmaynotmakethegoalofhavingallChineseuseMandarinmuchmoreextensively feasible.Thus,whilethereisacceptanceofMandarinanditslegitimacy,insomedomainsdialect useislikelytoremainstrong. THESTATUSOFENGLISH English,whilenotthetargetofanycampaign,hassucceededbeyondthedreamsofitsearly promoters.TheroleandstatusofEnglishinSingaporetodayaremarkedbyseveralfeatures.The firstistheremarkableacceptanceofEnglishasadefactonationallanguage,particularlywhen werememberthatformuchofthe1950sitwasregarded,principallybytheChineseeducated,as thelanguageofanalienoppressor,andpolicyeffortsinthe1960sandearly1970swerecentered onmakingthemothertonguesvitaleducationallanguages.Asecondfeaturehastodowiththe ambivalencewithwhichEnglishisregardedbyboththepoliticalestablishmentandtheethnic groups,especiallytheChinese.Englishis,ononehand,seenasthecarrierofdesirable modernizinginfluencesandthusanindispensablepartofSingapore'splansforthefuture.Atthe sametime,itisregardedasacarrierofthe"fadsandfetishes"oftheWestwhichSingapore needstoavoid.ThisconstantstressontheshortcomingsofEnglishasaculturallyvaluable languageprobablyexplainstheSingaporeans'instrumentalattachmenttothelanguage,and accountsforthepocketsofresistancetotheuseofEnglishinprivateandfamiliardomains amongsomeSingaporeans.Thehomeisinmanyinstancesabarriertothecompleteacceptance ofEnglish,andthegovernment'srationalizationsaboutlanguagefunctionshavecontributedto this. Onefinalobservationmaybemade.Inthe1950sandearlier,restrictedaccesstoEnglishmeant thatcompetenceinEnglishwashighlyrewarded.TodaythemajorchallengetoSingapore's bilingualpolicyisthefactthatwidespreadaccesstoEnglishmediumschoolinghasnotledto equitablelevelsofattainmentofEnglishcompetence.Notonlyissuchdisparityinattainment likelytobeamajorsourceofsocietaltensionanddisagreement,butitalsoputsatrisk Singapore'splantobeamajorhightechnologyandinformationcenter.Whatis"fortunate"is thatallgroupsseemequallyhandicappedinthepursuitofEnglishlanguagecompetence(Kuo, 1977). CONCLUSIONS Inspiteoftheproblemsalreadyevidentinattemptingaboldbilingualprograminamultilingual societywithahistoryoflanguagegeneratedhostility,Singapore'slanguagepoliciescanbe termedsuccessful.First,languagerelatedissues 402

arenolongerpoliticallycontentious.Disagreementsoverpoliciesandconsequencesremain,butin contrasttomanyothermultilingualstatesSingaporehasreachedaconsensusastowhatisdesirable intermsofanationallanguagepolicy.Allimportantsectorsinsocietysubscribetothepolicyof bilingualism;inmoreinformalsituations,theeasewithwhichspeakersswitchfromofficial languagestodialectdemonstratesthelackoftensionoverappropriatelanguagechoiceanduse. Second,inspiteoftheshortcomingsidentifiedearlier,therehasbeenaslowgrowthinthenumbers. Thegeneralliteracyrateforpersonsagedtenandabovewasestimatedtobe84.8percentin1982. However,themagnitudeofthetaskfacedisseeninthestatisticthatabout60percentofliterate personswereliterateinonlyoneofficiallanguage,mainlyChinese.Nevertheless,acomparisonof censusdatafor1970and1980indicatesthat,whereasin1970only19.1percentwerebilingualin twoormoreofficiallevels,withinadecadethatfigurehadrisento37.9percent.Withthechanges madetolanguagestrategies,itcanbepredictedthatby1990amajorityofthoseovertenandabove wouldbebilingual.Itwouldthenhavetakenaboutthreedecadestohaveachieveda40percent increaseinbilingualschoolleavers,aconsiderableachievementbyanycriterionandespecially noteworthygiventhetroublesthatplagueotherbilingualsystems. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IwishtoacknowledgetheassistanceofMahalakshmiSripathyinthepreparationofthischapter. BIBLIOGRAPHY ChanH.C.andH.D.Evers,1978."NationalIdentityandNationBuildinginSingapore."InStudies inASEANSociology,ed.H.C.ChenandH.D.Evers.Singapore:ChopmanEnterprises. ChiewSeenKong.1983."EthnicityandNationalIntegration.TheEvolutionofaMultiethnic Society."InSingaporeDevelopmentPoliciesandTrends,ed.PeterS.J.Chen.Singapore:Oxford UniversityPress. GopinathanS.1979."Singapore'sLanguagePolicies:StrategiesforaPluralSociety."InSoutheast AsianAffairs.Singapore:InstituteofSoutheastAsianStudies. .1980."MoralEducationinaPluralSociety:ASingaporeCaseStudy."InternationalReviewof Education262:17185. GopinathanS.,andA.Mani.1983."ChangesinTamilLanguageAcquisitionandUsagein Singapore:ACaseofSubtractiveBilingualism."SoutheastAsianJournalofSocialSciences2,No. 1. KuoC.Y.1976."ASociolinguisticProfile."InSocietyinTransition,ed.RiasHassan.Kuala Lumpur:OxfordUniversityPress. .1977."TheStatusofEnglishinSingapore:ASociolinguisticAnalysis."InTheEnglish LanguageinSingapore,ed.W.Crewe.Singapore:EasternUniversitiesPress. .1980."TheSociolinguisticSituationinSingapore:UnityinDiversity."In 403

LanguageandSocietyinSingapore,ed.E.A.AfrendasandC.Y.Kuo.Singapore:Singapore UniversityPress. MinistryofEducation.1980."EducationinSingapore."Singapore:GovernmentPrinter. PendleyC.1983."LanguagePolicyandSocialTransformationinSingapore."SoutheastAsian JournalofSocialScience2,2:4658. WilsonW.E.1978.SocialEngineeringinSingapore:EducationalPoliciesandSocialChange. Singapore:SingaporeUniversityPress. 404

21DouglasYoung BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATIONINADIVIDEDSOUTHAFRICAN SOCIETY BilingualismisconstitutionallyestablishedinSouthAfrican(SA)society.Theeconomy,industry, themedia,education,thelaw,andgovernmentallfunctionwithinstatutoryrequirementsthat AfrikaansandEnglish,thetwoofficiallanguages,beusedwithequalityandduerecognitionofthe rightsoftherespectivespeakers.Inmanyspheresofemployment,particularlypublic administration,thecivilservice,law,andeducation,demonstrablebilingualismisaprerequisitefor appointmentandcareeradvancement.ThisbilingualismisenforcedinsuccessiveActsof Parliamentdated1910,1926,and1961. AfrikaansandEnglishare,however,themothertonguesofthewhiteminority,manyAsians,andthe colouredcommunityonly.("Coloured"isapersonofmixedblood.)Inall,nomorethanabout30 percentoftheSApopulationofabout30millionhavetheselanguagesastheirmothertongues. Some67percentofthetotalpopulationisblack(African),comprisingsevenofficialethnicgroups speakingatleasttenBantulanguages.Thebalanceof3percentofthepopulacecomprisesIndian languagespeakersandvariousEuropeantongues,forexample,German,Italian,French,and Portuguese. BILINGUALISMVERSUSMULTILINGUALISM InthewhiteSAcommunity,bilingualismisunderstoodtomeanfluency,invaryingcompetencies, intheuseofbothAfrikaansandEnglishonly.Inthespecificsensethatbilingualismmeansthe measurablecompetencethatindividualshavetousemorethanonelanguageinacontactsituation, SAisindeedabilingualsociety.Butitscomplexityextendsfarbeyondthat;inreality,SAisa heterogeneous,multilingual,pluralisticsocietywithstrongconflictsbetweentheforcesof particularismandglobalism,inJ.Fishman(1977)terms.The 405

verynatureofSAsocietyplacesahighpremiumoncommunicationacrosslegallyestablished socioethnicandgroupdemarcationsbymeansofalinguafranca,usuallyEnglish.Veryfew whiteSouthAfricansarebilingualinthesensethattheyuseablacklanguage,whilelarge numbersofblacks,ofwhomsome40percentareilliterate(SAIRR,1984:436),useoneorboth officiallanguageseffectivelyoutoftheneedtosubsistinanemploymentmarketcontrolledby whitecapital.Indeed,mostblackscommandtheirownandotherBantulanguagesplusAfrikaans and/orEnglish,withsomefacilityindailycommunication.Thedominantmodeofbilingualism isthustransitionalandunilateralforthemajorityofSA'speople.Thispositionhasnotbeen reachedwithoutsignificantlanguageconflictrootedinideologicaltensionscenteredonissuesof raceandgroupidentity,aswillbediscussedbelow. RACE,LANGUAGE,ANDSEPARATISM SouthAfricanpreoccupationwithrace,color,andgroupidentities,embodiedintheapartheid ideologyoftheNationalistgovernment,isinextricablytiedtolanguageandlanguageplanning.It results,forexample,inoffensiveandsociallydivisivenomenclaturesuchas"black,""coloured," "Indian,"and"white,"ashasunavoidablybeendoneherein,inordertocharacterizeSA'ssocial complexity.Theterm"Bantu"usedheredenotesonlyitslinguisticclassificatorysense.Untilthe mid1970s,itwasusedbythegovernmenttoclassifyallblacks,ornonwhites.Priortothat,in Britishcolonialtimes,thelabelwas"Native."Theuseoftheterm"African"bywhiteSAliberals wasunacceptabletoAfrikaners,perhapsbecauseofthetranslatabilityofAfricantomean Afrikaner.Theconflictbetweenparticularismandglobalismdatesbacktothenineteenth century,withrootsintheDutchandEnglishcolonists'successiveattemptstocontrolindigenous peoples.TherapidemergenceofAfrikaansoutofDutchintheearlytwentiethcenturyled,in 1948,toAfrikaansbecomingthedominantlanguageofpoliticalcontrolbythewhitemajority. Thetensionsflowingfromthesedevelopmentsspawnedsensitivitiesthatinhibitedwidespread researchintobilingualism. OnlyE.G.Malherbe'sclassic1925and1977studiesanalyzethephenomenonindepth,though recenttentativeworkdonebytheHumanSciencesResearchCouncil(HSRC)redressesthis neglect.Internationally,thepariahstatusofSA,becauseofitsrepugnantapartheidpolicies,has perhapsbluntedforeignmotivationtoconductresearchandpublishonatopicsowellcoveredin othercountries.Forexample,E.GlynLewis'(1982)standardworkonthetopicdevotesscant attentiontoSAinatomeofoverfourhundredpages.Similarly,J.Miller(1983)studyomitsSA completely.Thechallengetoputrighttheseomissionsandneglectremainsaspowerfulasever. Thischapterwilloutlinesomeoftheimperativestoinquiryinacountrywherethecomplex interrelationshipoflanguage,ideology,nationalism,andeducationneedmuchfuller understanding. 406

LINGUISTICDEMOGRAPHY TheheterogeneityanddiversityofSA'smultilingualismareshowninthedatabelow.In overview,SAconsistsofthefollowingraciallyclassifiedgroups: Blacks,excluding"independent"homelands:17,741,000 Blacksinthehomelands:4,987,998 Whites:4,748,000 Coloureds:2,765,000 Asians:870,000 Total:31,111,998 Thesefiguresderivefromthe1980officialcensus,whichdoesnotclassifyintermsofmother tongueidentities.Estimatesofthedistributionofmothertonguespeakersofthevarious languagesofSAareasfollows: OfficialLanguages Afrikaans(Whites):2,581,080 English(Whites):1,763,220 Both,asspokenbycoloureds:2,765,000 Total,officiallanguages:7,156,000 OfficialEthnic,BantuLanguages NguniGroup Zulu:5,709,000 Xhosa:3,002,000 Swazi:858,000 S.Ndebeli:394,000 N.Ndebeli:267,000 SothoGroup Tswana:1,364,000 N.Sotho:2,358,000 S.Sotho:1,750,000 Tsonga:1,011,000 Venda:191,000 Foreign:117,000 (Thesefiguresexcludesomeoftheabovelanguagesasspokeninthehomelands,e.g.,Sotho, Xhosa,andZulu.) 407

IndianLanguages Tamil:Nodataavailable Gujerati:Nodataavailable Urdu:Nodataavailable Hindi:Nodataavailable Telegu:Nodataavailable TotalIndian:870,000 ImmigrantLanugages German:40,240 Portuguese:57,000 Greek:16,780 Italian:16,740 Dutch:11,740 French:6,340 Other:35,000 TotalImmigrants:183,840 Pidgin FANAKOLO,apidginusedintheworksituation,particularlyintheminesonthe Witwatersrand,connotesmasterservantrelations.Itcomprisesavocabularyof70percentZulu, 24percentEnglish,and6percentAfrikaans,withahighlysimplifiedsyntaxclosertoEnglish thantoBantu.Itisusedinalaborcontactsituation,particularlybetweenmigrantmineworkers fromneighboringstates(Lanham,1978:26). HISTORICALBACKGROUND BantuLanguages ThreemajorlanguagefamiliesincontactformthebasisforpresentdaySouthAfricansociety: (1)Khoisan,orHottentot[KhoiorKhoin]andBushman[San];(2)Bantu(representedbythe tenethniclanguagesalreadyoutlined),and(3)IndoEuropean(representedbyAfrikaans,based onDutchasspokenbyDutchsettlersintheCapeintheseventeenthcentury,andEnglish, broughttotheCapeProvincebyBritishsettlersinthenineteenthcentury). SanlanguagesinitiallyappearedinthelateStoneAge.Nowindangerof 408

extinction,Sanspeakersnumberaboutfiftythousand,confinedmainlytotheKalahariBasinin NamibiaandtoBotswana.ThefragmentarynatureoftheseSancommunitieshasledtolinguistic dissimilaritiesanddecreasinginterintelligibilitybetweenmanysmallSangroups.L.W.Lanham (1978)assertsthattheSanlanguageshave"littleplaceinthepatternsofmultilingualismin SouthernAfrica.VeryfewwhitesorblacksinSouthernAfricacontrolmorethanarestricted numberofSanwordsandexpressions.SanspeakersusuallylearnalanguageofWhitesonlytothe limitofthecontactsituation;mostcontroltheBantulanguageofthearea"(Lanham,1978:14). LiteracyisextremelylowamongSanspeakers. TheKhoi,orHottentot,haslittlearchaeologicalsupportforafirmlocationintime,butevidence suggestsaseparateidentityfromasearlyasthesixteenthcentury.Khoilanguages,liketheSan, havesurvivedpoorly,followingabsorptionbyBantuspeakingtribesandthroughassimilationwith colouredsintheCapeProvincesincetheeighteenthcentury.NamaisasignificantKhoisurvivor, todayspokenbyanimportantgroupinNamibia,withwidespreadbilingualismwiththelocal Afrikaanscommunity.LanhamsuggeststhatNama,adeveloped,literatelanguageintheNamibian schoolcurriculum,isneverthelessgivingwaytoAfrikaansasanurbanlinguafranca(Lanham, 1978:15).Apparently,contactwithEnglishdatesbacktotheseventeenthcentury.N.J.Parsons quotestheexampleofayoungKhoisanleaderwhowastakentoEnglandtolearntheEnglish languageandEuropeantradingpractices.WhenJanvanRiebeecklandedattheCapein1652,he wasgreetedonthebeachbyaKhoileaderwhospoketohiminEnglish(Parsons,1982:78). TheBantulanguagesarecentraltothedevelopmentofSouthernandparticularlySouthAfrica, evincedbythevastmajorityoftheirspeakersinthedemographyoftheregion.Archaeologyplaces thepresenceoftheBantulanguagesinSouthAfricafromatleastthefifthcenturyA.D.,andfirm evidenceexiststoplacetheNgunigroupspeakersontheeastcoastofSouthAfrica.Lanhamargues thatNguniandSotho,asthetwomajorBantulanguageclusters,"havestrongcircumstantial evidencetosupporttheirpresenceinSouthAfricaforatleasthalfofthe15centuriesoftheIron Age"(Lanham,1978:16).OriginatingintheNigerCongoregionofAfrica,anddescendedfromthe ProtoBantuofwhichtherearesomefourhundredsimilarlinguisticdescendants,Bantulanguages inSouthernAfricahadearlycontactwithKhoisan,mainlySanspeakers,asevincedintheclick consonantsandinthelexicon.Approximately15percentofXhosavocabularyisKhoi.OftheSotho languages,onlySesothoisextensivelyinfluencedbyKhoisan(Lanham,1978:16). ThehistoryofBantulanguagesislargelyoraluntilthenineteenthcentury,when,inabout1860, scripturesweretranslatedintovernaculars.IncreasingcontactwithDutchandEnglishcolonistsand missionariesoveratleasttwocenturiesresultedinthewidespreadcoinageofloanwordsinall Bantulanguages.InXhosa,forexample,AfrikaansandEnglishinfluenceresultedinnounssuchas itafile=table;ihempi=hempinAfrikaans=shirt;itispuni=teaspooon; 409

ifayidukwe=doekinAfrikaans=cloth;ifenstile=vensterinAfrikaanswindow. Mothertongueinterferenceatthesyntacticlevelsometimesresultsinmiscommunicationin crossculturalsettings;forexample,bysaying"thecupitbroke"ablackhousemaidisseemingly disclaimingresponsibilityforhavingbrokenthecup.Infact,theNgunisyntaxomitstheergative, agentiveform.Similarly,"thetrainleftme"means"Imissedthetrain."Englishfixed expressions,assimilatedintoNgunilanguages,resultinexpressionssuchas"Doctor,thepatient islate,"usedbyblacknurses,meaning"Doctor,thepatientisdead,"fromtheEnglish'thelate Mr.Smith'. Arichindigenousliteratureexistsinalltheofficiallanguages.Textbooksaboundintheseatall levelsofschooling.TechnicalterminologieshavebeencoinedbytheDepartmentofEducation andTraininginchargeofblackeducation,thoughsomeeducationistsarguethatamore fundamentalinductionofconceptsisneededinthenaturalandphysicalsciences.The controversyengenderedbysuchassertionshasobviousWhorfianovertones,needingresearch. BothZuluandXhosaspeakershavemajordailynewspapers,andradioprogramsaretransmitted inallofficialethniclanguages.TVchannelsnowexistforZuluandXhosaspeakersandare widelyviewedbyallgroups,whoalsohaveaccesstothewhitechannel.TheXhosaandZulu channelsarewidelyviewedbywhites,andthisaugurswellforamoveawayfromtheunilateral bilingualismdiscussedabove. Afrikaans Withover4millionspeakerstoday,whiteandcoloured,representingsome13percentofthe entirepopulation,Afrikaansisunquestionablyestablishedasanationallanguage.Itsdirect identificationwiththelanguageofgovernmentbyawhiteminoritygrouphasledtoitbeing perceivedasthelanguageoftheoppressor,resultinginsomealienationfromitspublicuseby manycolouredandblackpeople.Historicallyandlinguistically,Afrikaansistheproductofa remarkablelanguagedevelopmentandchangeoverarelativelyshortperiodofthreehundred years. AfrikaansasitisnowspokenhaditspublicfoundationatameetingoftheFellowshipofTrue AfrikanersinPaarlintheWesternCapein1875.Theiraimwasto"createanawarenessamongst thespeakersofAfrikaansthatAfrikaans,notDutchorEnglish,wastheirmothertongueand oughttobetheirwrittenlanguage"(Combrink,1978:69).Fiftyyearslater,in1925,Afrikaans wasconstitutionallylegalizedasoneofthetwoofficiallanguagesofthethenUnionofSouth Africa.ThoughdejureequalwithEnglishatthetime,itwasdefactoanunequalpartner,heavily overshadowedbyEnglishasanationallanguage,whichwasthenendorsedbythemightof Britain,thecolonialoverlord.In1975,amonument,perhapsuniqueinlinguistichistory,was erectedinPaarltocommemoratethefoundingoftheAfrikaansahundredyearsbefore. 410

Now,in1985,AfrikaansisdefactoanddejureatleastequaltoEnglishasanationallanguage, thoughsomeAfrikaneracademicshaveexpresseddoubtsaboutitscontinuedsurvival,givenits identificationwiththelanguageofoppressionanditslackofwidespreadusebeyondtheconfinesof SouthAfrica.ConsiderationofthehistoricaldevelopmentofAfrikaansisrelevanttoan understandingofhowithassorapidlybecomeacatalyticforceinstrenuouseffortsatmaintaining whitegroupidentityandlanguageparity,forthisendeavorliesattherootofthepresentSouth Africansociopoliticaldilemmas.TheensuingoverviewdrawsheavilyonJ.G.H.Combrink1978 analysis. TherearetwomainhypothesesabouttheoriginofAfrikaans.TheoneassertsthatAfrikaans developedspontaneouslyoutofcertainDutchdialectsonforeignsoil,intheabsenceofthe constraintsofschoolingandliteracy.TheotherhypothesisisthatAfrikaansistheproductofcontact between(1)Dutchandindigenouslanguages,forexample,KhoiandBantu;(2)DutchandEnglish, French,andotherEuropeanlanguages,especiallyGerman;and(3)Dutchandimmigrantcreoles, forexample,PortugueseintheseventeenthcenturyandMalayintheeighteenth.Combrinkcallsthe latter"heteroglossist."HeposesthequestionofwhetherAfrikaanswasbornofanimmaculate conceptionorasaresultofsomedirtytrickplayedonDutch.Afterevaluatingtheevidence, particularlysince1940,heconcludesthat"wearenowinapositiontodeclarethatAfrikaanswas bornofapolygamousshotgunmarriageinvolvingseveralDutchdialects,albeitunderpressureof variousforeigninfluences"(Combrink,1978:70). Thelayman'stendencytodismissAfrikaansasameredialectorsimplificationofDutch,without verbinflectionsinthepresentindicative,isrefutedbythestrongevidencemarshalledbyCombrink. ThespontaneityandsymbioticdevelopmentofAfrikaansoutofthedominantDutchusedinthe sparselypopulatedsettlementattheCapeintheearlyeighteenthcenturyledtoarapiddemiseofthe useofotherlanguagessuchasFrenchandevenKhoin,thespeakersofKhoinsurrenderingtheir mothertongueasaresultofcontactwiththeCapeDutchlanguage. TouseCombrink'sconclusions: morethanninetypercentofthestructureofAfrikaansisofDutchvernaculardescent.In theprocessofdevelopmentupto1800afewitemsofMalay,Portuguese,Khoin, GermanandFrenchdescententeredthelanguage.After1800,i.e.,whenAfrikaanswas alreadyinexistence,asmalllexicalinfluencewasexertedbythesouthernBantu languages.Englishhasalsohadaprettystronglexical,semanticandsyntacticinfluence since1800(Combrink,1978:84). MorerecentchangesinAfrikaans(sincethe1920s)aretheresultofsustainedcontactwithEnglish, especiallyintheworkplace,throughthemediaandeducation.Englishisadominantsecond languageformostAfrikaners. 411

AfrikaansintheColouredCommunity TheColoureds'useofAfrikaans,whichformanyistraditionallyamothertongue,isacomplex issue,littleresearched.ItischaracterizedbyfrequentcodeswitchingbetweenAfrikaansand English,witharichvarietyofdialects.TheincreasinguseofEnglishtoreplaceAfrikaansis politicallyinspiredandoftenmotivatedbyawishforupwardsocialmobility,ratherthanoutof anappraisalofEnglishasasuperiorlanguageperse. K.McCormick(1983)interviewedsixtyfivestudentsatthe(coloured)Universityofthe WesternCape,nearCapeTown,togaugetheirlanguagepreferences.Allhersubjectsregarded themselvesasbilingualinEnglishandAfrikaansinvaryingcompetencies.Herfindingsincluded thefollowing:Englishwasthelanguageofthemiddleclass,andAfrikaansthatoftheworking classinCapeTown,thoughnotinoutlyingruralareas.Intermsofpoliticalaffiliation,someof hersubjectssaidtheywouldrefusetouseAfrikaanstoawhite,sincesuchuserequiredstandard Afrikaans.Similarly,StandardEnglishwasseenasthatspokenbythedominantsocialclass, symbolizingoppression.Educationally,hersubjectsreportedhavingstartedschoolingin AfrikaansandfinishingitinEnglish,thelatterbeingperceivedasthelanguageofhigher education.UrbanizationofruralcolouredswouldresultinswitchingtoEnglishtosymbolize urbanassimilation.Similarly,Englishwasthelanguageofmeetings,evenifmostattendingwere morecomfortableinAfrikaans.However,thelanguageofintimacywasunquestionably Afrikaans.The"languageofreligion"showednoclearpatternofpreferences,perhapsbecauseof theChristian/Muslimdichotomyamongthecolouredpeople,theMuslimsneedingArabicfor formalworshiporMalayanwordsmixedwithAfrikaans.McCormickdrawssignificant comparisonsbetweenChicanocodeswitchingandthatoftheColouredcommunity. ThecommonoriginofAfrikaansandcolouredpeoplehaslongbeendiscussedwidelyinSouth Africa,andH.Heese1985findings,whichshowthatmanywhiteAfrikaanssurnameshavea commonancestrywiththoseofcolouredpeoplelivingintheWesternCapeintheeighteenthand nineteenthcenturies,haslaunchedaheatedpublicdebate.SomewhiteAfrikanershave attemptedtorepudiatethesefindings,claiming"pure"whiteorigins,freeofbloodmixingwith peopleofcolor.Theoutcomeofthiscontroversycouldwellbeincreasedlinguistictolerance shownbyAfrikaansspeakingwhitestowardAfrikaansspeakingcolouredpeople,oncethe inevitableacknowledgmentofsuchcommonancestryleadstoablurringofethnicpuristattitudes amongconservativeAfrikaansspeakingwhites. English ThehistoryofEnglishinSouthAfricaismorewidelyknownthanthatofAfrikaans.Thisis partlybecauseitisrecordednaturallyinEnglishininternationalpublicationstoagreaterextent thanhasbeenthecasewithAfrikaans,withitslimitedintelligibilityoutsideofSouthAfrica. 412

EnglishwasformallyintroducedintotheCapeProvinceasaresultofthefirstBritishoccupationof theCapein1806.CapeTownrapidlybecameEnglishspeaking,withcloseBritishlinks.Butthe majorinitialdevelopmentofEnglishasalanguageofAfricafollowedthesettlement,in1820,of fivethousandBritishgovernmentsponsoredsettlers.Similar,slightlylatersettlementsoccurredin Natal.EnglishsooncameunderthedirectinfluenceofCapeDutch,laterAfrikaans,Zulu,and Xhosa,resultingintheemergenceofSouthAfricanEnglish(SAE),whichhasavocabularyrichin evidenceofthisearlycrossculturalcontact.Branfordrecent(1983)DictionaryofSouthAfrican Englishisanexcellent,comprehensiveinventoryofthewaysinwhichSAEhasgrownandchanged asaresultofthiscontact.StandardBritishEnglishwasmaintainedasanaccent,reinforcedby strongcolonialandCommonwealthtiesuntiltheearly1960s,afterwhich,withSouthAfrica'sexit fromtheCommonwealth,theprestigevalueofSouthernBritishEnglishdeclinedrapidly.SAEis nowwidelyacceptableasanaccentwithadistinctivevocabularyandidiom.Structurally,however, SAEdiffersonlyslightlyfromStandardBritishEnglish.Themostsignificantworkontheroleand functionofEnglish,particularlyasaspokenlanguageinSouthAfrica,isthatofLanham.P. Trudgill1982workoninternationalEnglish,drawingasitdoesonLanham'sresearch,givesa usefulanalysisofSAEinrelationtoothervarietiesofworldEnglish. ForallitsstrengthasalinguafrancaandeducationmediuminSouthAfrica,Englishisspokenasa mothertonguebyonlyabout8percentofthepopulation.Itisthemostwidelyusedsecond language,withwidefunctionalandsociopoliticalvalue,especiallyforBantuspeakersandan increasingnumberofcolouredpeople,asdiscussedabove.Alltheindependenthomelandsaswell asthenationalstateshaveoptedforEnglishasamediumofinstructionfromthefourthyearof schoolingthroughtotertiaryeducation,whilemostblackschoolswithintherepublichavedecided similarly.Theoriginsandimplicationsofthesedecisionsarediscussedlaterinthischapter. Historically,Englishasasecondlanguageiscrucialinthedevelopmentofpoliciesofbilingualism andbilingualeducation.In1922,theBritishGovernoroftheCapeproclaimedEnglishtheonly officiallanguage,withsubsequentgovernorsfollowingapolicyofanglicizingtheDutchcolonists. Englishrapidlybecamethelanguageofgovernment,education,andculturallife,eventhoughin 1860only20percentofthewhitepopulationintheCapewasEnglish.Englishbecamethelanguage ofpublicdiscourse,andAfrikaansthatofprivateandreligiouslife.Afrikanersoftheperiod1850to theearly1900swereinmanyrespectsmothertongueEnglishspeakers.Evennegativeattitudes towardBritishImperialismdidnotdeterAfrikanersfrompromotingAfrikaansEnglishbilingualism andregularuseofEnglishinthelearnedprofessions,business,andeducation.Antipathytoward EnglishasalanguageemanatedfromthehostilitiesbetweenBoerandBriton,culminatinginthe AngloBoerWarattheturnofthecentury,coupledwiththegrowthofAfrikanernationalismand groupidentity.ButBritishvictory,pyrrhicinasense,resultedinpoliciesofanglicizationin 413

government,law,andpublicaffairs.Afrikaansleadersredoubledtheireffortstosecurethe identityandpublicstatusofAfrikaans.Thetaalstryd(languagestruggle),lastingwellintothe 1960s,haditsrootsintheperiodimmediatelyfollowingtheAngloBoerWar. AfrikanernationalismandthepowerfuldrivetomaintainAfrikaanssoonled,followingWorld WarII,toAfrikanerdominanceinpolitical,educational,administrative,andmanyspheresof publiclife.Atthesametime,therewasgrowingapathybyEnglishspeakerstowardmaintenance oftheirlanguage.Thissituationcausedsomealarmtoasmallgroupofacademicsand educationistsinthe1960s,whosuccessfullyattemptedtoalertpublicattitudestothegrowing declineinstandardsofEnglishusebyEnglishspeakers.Oneofthesignificantoutcomesofthis concernwastheestablishmentoftheEnglishAcademyofSouthernAfrica,chargedwiththetask ofmaintainingstandardsandcriticalattitudestowardtheuseofEnglish.Sincetheearly1970s, Englishmediumuniversitieshaveshownincreasingconcernoverdeclininglevelsof undergraduatecommunicativecompetenceinEnglish.Theresultingprojectsincludeacademic supportprogramstoraisethelevelofcompetenceintheuseofEnglishasasecondlanguage, particularlyamongblackstudents. Thesociopoliticaltensionsflowingfromthetaalstrydofthemidcenturyarenowonthewanein somerespects,partlybecausewhiteSouthAfricans,regardlessoftheirmothertongue,are increasingly,thoughbelatedly,becomingawareoftheneedtomeetthepoliticalandsocial aspirationsoftheblackmajorityifaviolentconfrontationistobeavoided.Thishasresulted,to someextent,inlanguageinterdependenceandasemblanceofunityofpurpose. THEPRESENTSITUATION BilingualisminSAtodayshouldbeseeninthecontextoftwofundamentalevents.Thefirstis theexitofSAfromtheBritishCommonwealthin1960,followedbytheenactmentoflegislation transformingSAintoarepublicin1961.Second,thetragicunrestinSowetoin1976resultingin thedeathsofhundredsofblacks,manyofwhomwereschoolchildrenhad,asoneofitsmajor causes,thelanguagemediumissueinblackprimaryschooling(seethesectionon"Black Education"below).Theadventofrepublicangovernmentledtoclarificationofbilingualpolicies andasubsequentslightdissipationinthetaalstryd;theSowetoriotsforcedarapidrethinkingon theSAgovernment'slanguageplanningandmediumpoliciesinblackschools,with consequencesofmajorimport,particularlyrelatingtomothertongueinstructionandEnglish secondlanguageteaching. BilingualismandtheRepublic IntermsoftheConstitutionoftheRepublicofSouthAfrica,May31,1961,PartX,language policyisstatedasfollows: 414

108.Equalityofofficiallanguages.(1)EnglishandAfrikaansshallbetheofficial languagesoftheRepublic,andshallbetreatedonafootingofequality,andpossessand enjoyfreedom,rightsandprivileges.(2)Allrecords,journalsandProceedingsof Parliamentshallbekeptinboththeofficiallanguages,andallBills,Actsandnoticesof generalpublicimportanceorinterestissuedbytheGovernment...shallbeinboth officiallanguages.(3)Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofsubsection(1),anActof Parliament,wherebyaBlackareaisdeclaredtobeaselfgoverningterritoryinthe Republic,oralaterActofParliamentoralaterProclamationoftheStatePresident... mayprovidefortherecognitionofoneormoreBlacklanguagesforanyorallofthe followingpurposes,namely asanadditionalofficiallanguageofthatterritory;or foruseinthatterritoryforofficialpurposesprescribedbyorunderthatActorlaterActby suchproclamation...(RSA,1961). FreedfromtheconstraintsofBritishdominanceandremotemonarchicalrule,thispolicy particularlysoughttosecuretheAfrikaner'srighttofull,legalizedparticipationinpubliclife,using hisorherownlanguage.Itmaybearguedthattherecognitiongiventoblacklanguagesinself governingterritoriesanticipatedthecontroversialestablishmentoftheTranskeiandother independenthomelands,accordingrightsalreadyexerciseddefactotherein. DuplicationofEffort ThisprotectionoftherightsofEnglishandAfrikaansspeakershasled,inevitably,tomassive duplicationofeffortandcostintheissueofpublicdocumentsandintheoutputofthemassmedia, particularlytelevision.Introducedatthelatehourof1976inSA,theinitialandonly(white)channel wastransmittedinstrictaccordancewiththepolicyoflanguageequality.Theresultisnews bulletins,oftenindirecttranslationoneat6:00P.M.andtheotherat8:00P.M.Interviewswith politicians,whicharealwaystheforefrontofnewscasts,havetobeinbothlanguages.Onlyone interviewer,usuallyAfrikaansspeaking,isused.Asaresult,inspiteofadmirablebilingualismin manycases,thequalityofEnglishusedbyinterviewerandintervieweeissuspectandthereis regularpublicoutcryaboutdecliningstandardsofEnglishusedbytheSouthAfricanBroadcasting Corporation(SABC).Ontheotherhand,theunavoidableconstantuseofinternationalnewsagency telexes,oftenexclusivelyinEnglish,placesAfrikaansatadisadvantage,translationbeingessential andapointofmajorlanguageinterference.Thereismuchevidence,whichasyetisunresearched formally,thatasaresultofthisunavoidableuseofEnglishsourcematerialAfrikaansisundermajor threatofchange. AfrikaansisnotalwayssyntacticallyaseconomicalasEnglishregardingtheprecisionoftiming neededinnewscasting;hence,thereisaclearlydetectableanglicizationofAfrikaanssyntax.The poweroftelevisioninSouthAfricaissogreatthatthismustbeseenasaninterestingcaseof languagechange.Onthe 415

otherhand,havingasingletelevisionchannelforbothlanguageshashadaverypositiveeffect onpublicattitudes,especiallychildren's,resultingingreaterlanguagetolerance. Anexampleoftheabsurdityofthisduplicatedeffortisoftenheardinairports:whensomeone approachestheinformationdesktoaskforabroadcastcallingapersonwhoisobviously,say, Afrikaans,therequestoverthePAsystemtoreporttotheinformationdeskwillbeinboth languages,regardless.Similarly,thehateful"whitesonly/slegsblankes"signsinpublicplaces, whichwereoncesocommon,oftenomittedtheprohibition'sexpressionintheblacklanguageof thoseitsoughtsounjustlytoexclude! BILINGUALEDUCATION Giventhepolicyofinstitutionalizedbilingualismintheofficiallanguages,SA'seducation systemsinbroadoutlineaimtoensurethatbilingualismisachievedinwhiteandcoloured schools,whilepupilsinblackschoolsarerequiredtobefluentintheirmothertongueandone, andpreferablyboth,oftheofficiallanguagesasasecondlanguage.Theprincipleofmother tongueinstructionisfollowedstrictlyinwhiteandcolouredschoolsfromSubA(firstgrade) throughStandard10(twelfthgrade),withtheotherofficiallanguagestudiedasasecond languageforthesameperiod. Inblackschools,themothertongueofthepupil'sethnicgroupisthemediumofinstructionfor thefirstfouryearsofprimaryschool,whereasoneoftheofficiallanguages(inmostcases, English)becomesthemediumofinstructiontoStandard10,withthemothertongueretainedasa firstlanguagesubject.BothAfrikaansandEnglisharestudiedassecond/thirdlanguagesuntil Standard7.Inthefinalthreeyearsofhighschool,oneoftheofficiallanguagesisstudied, usuallyasasecondlanguageonthehighergrade.Thisappliesequallytobothstateandprivate (public)schools,thelatterbeingnonracial.Therearetenexaminationboardswhichadminister publicexaminationsintheselanguageswithintheschoolcurriculum,withsuperordinate moderationofstandardsbytheJointMatriculationBoard,representingtheuniversities. Untiltheearly1980s,blackschoolpupilswererequiredtostudythreelanguagesfromStandards 3to10,whereaswhiteswererequiredtostudyAfrikaansandEnglishonly,withtheoptionofa third,usuallyEuropean,language.Thisanomaly,nowrectified,placedblacksatagreat disadvantage,particularlyintermsofmeetinguniversityentrancerequirements,whichstress diversityofchoiceinsubjectsofferedatmatriculationlevel:tostudythreelanguagesassubjects outofasixsubjectcurriculumforuniversityentranceseriouslyweakenedthechancesofblacks wishingtoofferarange,forexample,ofsciencebasedsubjects.Inanyevent,blacksareseriously disadvantagedincompetingforplacesinpredominantlywhiteuniversitiesthatarenow nonracial,inthattheyhavebeentaughtEnglishinblackschoolsbyteachersundertrained, underqualified,andfarfromcompetentintheEnglishtheyteach.Academicsupport 416

programsandwhatmightbenamedcompensatorybilingualismstressingEnglishforacademic purposesareincludedinEnglishmediumuniversitycurriculafor"disadvantaged"students.Most ofthesestudentswilltakefouryearsoverathreeyearundergraduatedegreeasaresultof deficientschoolingintheblackeducationsystem. Teachertrainingcoursesatalllevels,collegeanduniversity,requirethattheirgraduateshave languageproficiencyendorsementscertifyingabilitytoteachinbothofficiallanguages. ResearchbyE.G.Malherbe(1938),corroboratedbyC.J.Kitching(1984),showsthatthe competenceofwhiteteachersinthesecondlanguage,especiallyinruralareas,islamentably poor.Inmanycases,atprimaryschoollevels,itisnohigherinthetargetlanguage,particularly English,thanthatofthelearnersatthattargetlevel. TeacherShortages TheDeLangeCommissionontheProvisionofEducationfortheRSA(DeLangeetal.,1981), estimatedashortageof250,000teachersinallSAschoolsin1990,80percentofthatshortage beinginblackschools.Givenatotalblackschoolpopulationofover5millionin1985andan averageteacher:pupilratioof42.7:1inblackschools(whiteschools18.2:1)(SAIRR,1983:421 ),theformidabletaskofteachinganylanguageeffectivelyinablacksocietywithahighschool dropoutrate,foreconomicreasons,andhighilliteracyandregressionfromliteracyasaresultof dropout,theresultsachievedbyteachersandpupilsinlanguagelearningareremarkable,even thoughthefailurerateatschoolleavingstagesishigh. Onlyabout35percentofallblackteachersarequalifiedbeyondStandard8(tenthgrade),while onlyabout3percenthavebachelor'sdegrees(SAIRR,1983:440).TheSAgovernmenthas progressivelyincreasedexpenditureonblackeducationsince1977,butthisstilllagsfarbehind theprovisionforwhite,Indian,andcolourededucationsystemsonapercapitabasis(blackper capitaexpenditure1982/3:R146,44;whiteR1,211,00)(SAIRR,1983:420). Education,Language,andSocialDivision SouthAfricaistheonlysocietythatusesitsschoolstodivideitspeopleintosociolinguistic ethnicgroupings.Anyattempttocharacterizebilingualandmultilingualeducationwithinthis formofsocialengineeringisinevitablytrapped,howeverreluctantly,ashasbeensointhis chapter,intosuchanalysisusingthegroupandethniclabelsgeneratedbyapartheid. NobriefoverviewlikethiscanbutscratchthesurfaceoflanguageteachinginSA.Onlytwo issuescanbeexaminedinfinerdetailintermsofeachsociolinguisticgroup:mother tongue/mediumofinstructionandEnglishsecondlanguageteaching. 417

BlackEducation The1953BantuEducationActplacedallblackeducationundercentralgovernmentcontrol.The mediumoflanguageteachingwasthemothertongueuptotheendofStandard8,withAfrikaans andEnglishasobligatorysubjectsonly.Inthe1970s,attemptsweremadetointroducethe teachingofcertainprimaryschoolsubjectsinAfrikaans,othersinEnglish.Thisresultedin growingtensionswhich,despiterepeatedunheededwarningstoPretoriaofimminentconflict, eruptedintomassiveviolenceinSowetoschoolsinJune1976.Otherpoliticalcauseswere evidenttoo,butthelanguagemediumprotestarticulatedblackangerattheobviouseffectsofthe policyofenforcingethnicitysoastodivideZulufromXhosafromSothofromVendaandsoon. TherewasstrongresentmenttowardAfrikaansbecauseitsymbolizedoppressionbyitsspeakers. Englishwasandisthedesiredlinguafranca,theaccesslanguagetoawiderworld.Government responsewasswift:by1979anewpolicywasenacted,initiatingfreechoiceofmediumfrom Standard3on.InnearlyallcasesexceptsomeintheFreeStateandfarNorthernTransvaal,the electivewasEnglish,followingtheexampleofthenewly"independent"Transkei,whichalready hadEnglishasmedium.TheconsequencesofthisswitchtoEnglishmediumwerepredictable teacherscomfortableintheprimaryschoolteachinginthevernacularlackedcompetencein English.Pupilperformancedeclined.EnglishasasecondlanguagebecameEnglishasmedium, andmanyoftheproblemsofAfricanorthofSAwereechoedbutfordifferentreasons.The teachingofEnglishasasecondlanguagehasthusbecomeanevenmoredramaticandurgent imperativeforresearchandproblemsolving.Massivepreserviceandinserviceteacher educationisunderway,bothfromwithintheDepartmentofEducationandTrainingcontrolling blackeducationandfromtheprivatesector. ColouredEducation TheColouredcommunity,disenfranchisedin1952andnow,intermsofthenewSA Constitution,reenfranchisedafterafashion,liveintheCapeProvinceandmetropolitan Transvaal.Aswithotherraciallyclassifiedgroups,Colourededucationisseparatelycontrolled byagovernmentdepartment,presentlytheDepartmentofEducationandCulture. TraditionallyAfrikaansspeakingandbeforedisenfranchisementregardedasonewith Afrikaners,Coloureds,particularlyinCapeTown,haveabandonedloyaltytoAfrikaansin increasingnumbers.Asaresult,inschoolingitisdifficulttoidentifythemothertongueofpupils atalllevelsinthesystem.The1976Sowetoriotsandsubsequent,relatedschoolboycottsand unrestintheWesternCapein1980highlightedthisalienationfromAfrikaans. ThereisahighdegreeofAfrikaansEnglishbilingualismanddynamic,regularcodeswitchingin allsubjectsinthecurriculum.Withinanyoneschool,onefindspupilsstudyingtheofficial languagesatmothertongueoratsecondlan 418

guagelevel,thoughthosepupilstakingEnglishasasecondlanguagetendtobestigmatizedby classconsciouspeers.Englishisoftenidentifiedasalanguageofupwardsocialmobilityand withpoliticaloppositiontoapartheid.McCormick's1984researchcharacterizesthecomplexity oflanguageattitudesheldbyColouredpupils.Inherinterviewswithpupils,shefoundthat Alotofpeoplebecomehidialectal[inAfrikaans]eitheriftheirworkdemandsthe useofthestandardvarietyofthelanguage,oriftheyreachupperlevelsofsecondary ortertiaryeducation...peoplewithtertiaryeducationusedEnglishwhendiscussing ideasandissues,andAfrikaansforintimateordomesticmatters.Regardlessofthe levelofeducationofparticipants,Englishisseenasthelanguageappropriatefor gatherings...meetingsheldatschoolsbyboycottingpupilsin1980wereconducted inEnglishevenwhenmostofthepupilswereAfrikaansdominantandnotfluentin English. ThereareLabovianechoesinattitudestowardtheuseofstandardofficiallanguages.Myown graduateeducationstudentsstronglyresistanyformofassessment,asteachertrainees,oftheir AfrikaansandEnglishintermsofstandardcriteriaofcommunicativecompetenceinthe classroom.Theyarguethattheirpupilsspeakdialectsandnonstandardformsandthatateacher attemptingtoimposeastandardlanguagefacescertaindiscreditation.Asfarasmothertongue useathomeisconcerned,tentativepersonalresearchshowsthatmanyAfrikaansspeaking parentspressuretheirchildrenintousingEnglishathome. Asinblackeducation,thereareseriousinequalitiesintheprovisionofeducation;teacher trainingintheofficiallanguagesremainsakeyissue. IndianEducation TheIndiancommunity,livinginNatalandtheWitwatersrand,iseffectivelyEnglishspeaking. SAIndianEnglish(SAIE)haslargelydisplacedIndianlanguagesinthehome.Thepresent populationofovereighthundredthousanddatesbacktosettlementinNatalin1860.Schoolingis entirelyintheEnglishmedium,withpupilsachievingahighdegreeoffluencyinspeakingrather thaninwritingthelanguage.D.Bughwan(1970)observesthatfewyoungIndianshaveany competenceintheirvernacularIndiantongues.Therequirementsofbilingualeducationarein forceinIndianschools,thoughthereislittlenaturaluseofAfrikaansoutsidetheclassroom. WhiteEducation Bilingualeducationisatitsmostdefinitiveinthemostaffluentlyprovided,privilegedsystemof educationthatforwhites.Allwhiteschoolingfrompreprimarytosecondaryisconductedin oneorotheroftheofficiallanguages,withtheminimalexceptionofsomeschoolinginGerman andGreek.SchoolsarepredominantlystateschoolswithintheprovincesoftheCape,Orange FreeState, 419

Natal,andTransvaal,andareclassifiedaseitherAfrikaansorEnglishmedium.Thereremainsa smallnumberofdualandparallelmediumschoolsintheWesternCape,arelicofearlierattemptsto promotenaturalratherthanartificialbilingualism(Malherbe,1925)thattendstoresultfromsingle mediumschooling.Dualmedium,whereininstructiontakesplaceinbothofficiallanguagesona rotaorsubjectbasedscheme,wasoncethedesiredschoolsystemforparentsaimingatnatural bilingualismandinterlanguagetolerance.Politicallymotivatedlanguageplanningcoupledwith fearsthatinterlanguagecontactatschoolwoulddilutelanguagepurityandsocioethnicgroup identityledtoaphasingoutoftheseschools.Thoseremainingtendtobesinglemedium,usually Afrikaansbecausethecachment,usuallyruralareaisinvariablyAfrikaansdominant.Forthesame reasons,parallelmediumschooling,whereinpupilsofbothlanguagegroupsreceivedteachingin separatelanguagestreamsaccordingtomothertongueclassificationandthenmixedfreelyinthe playground,isvirtuallyextinctinSA. Inallwhiteschools,thenonmothertonguelanguageistakenatsecondlanguagelevel,or equivalentlyatfirstlanguagegradewheremotivationandcompetencesuggestthis.Parentsmay choose,inmanyinstances,astowhichlanguagemediumschooltosendtheirchildren.Thosewho havehighmotivationtoachievefullbilingualismelecttosendtheirchildrento,say,anAfrikaans schoolatprimarylevelandtoanEnglishschoolatthesecondarystage,thoughpeergroup conformityandlanguageloyaltyoftenmilitateagainstsuchfreedom.Privateschools,exclusively Englishmedium,neverthelessfollowbilingualeducationpoliciesinthatAfrikaansisofferedat firstorsecondlanguagelevelasasubject.Anincreasingnumberofstateandprivateschoolsnow offeraBantulanguagefromaboutStandard4upwards,asathirdlanguage.Apartheidpresently precludestheuseofblackstoteachtheselanguagesinprovincialschools. Thatthemothertonguemediumofinstructionissoentrenchedinasocietywheremoreflexibility ofchoicewouldarguablyhaveledtogreatercommonalityiswellrootedinthehistoryofAfrikaans alreadydiscussed.Theeffectofanglicizationpolicies,especiallyundertheMilnerregime(ca. 1900),spurredAfrikanerquestsforgreaterexclusivity,closelyrelatedtoreligiousdogma,translated intotheeducationalphilosophyandpolicythatnowdominatewhiteeducation,knownasChristian NationalEducation.TheAfrikanerreactiontoattemptsatanglicization,amplydiscussedby MalherbeandKroes(1978),wasepitomizedintheoftquoted"thelanguageoftheconquerorinthe mouthoftheconqueredisthelanguageofslaves"(ofFlemishorigin).Thisfollowedonthedefeat oftheBoersbytheBritishintheAngloBoerWar.Theinsistenceonsinglemediumschools flowingfromthisreactionalsoresultedintheEnglishcommunity'sintroductionofprivate,usually AnglicanChurchschools.Theseschoolsinitiallysoughttopreserveandreplicatethevaluesand processesofBritishpublicschools,sometimestothepointwheretheybecameanachronisms,notin stepwiththeiroriginalmodels'changingvaluesinBritain.Theproducts 420

oftheseandstateschools,inturnmodeledonthem,servedtoproduceEnglishelites,tendingto speakconservativeSAE,whorapidlyrosetotheleadershipofwhitecommerceandindustry, formingpartofthecapitalistideologymaintainingwhiteprivilege.Thisleadershipisstillheldby productsofaselectgroupofabouttwodozenEnglishmediumschools(Ashley,1974:3960).P. Randall(1984)callsthisphenomenon"LittleEnglandontheVeld." EnglishspeakingSouthAfricanshave,ingeneral,remainedapatheticabouteducationalstandards instateschools.ThereisagreatshortageofEnglishspeakingteachers,especiallyofEnglish,instate schools,particularlyintheheavilypopulatedmetropolitanareasofJohannesburgandPretoria.Itis estimatedthatabout75percentoftheteachingofEnglishtoEnglishmothertonguepupilsisdone byAfrikanersinthoseareas,forexample.Parentselectingprivateschoolingfortheirchildrenclaim thattheyareavoidingtherisksofexposingthechildrentoEnglishtaughtbadlybynonEnglish(i.e., Afrikaansspeaking)teachers,who,forideologicalreasons,didnothavetheinterestsof Englishspeakersatheart.ItneededvoicessuchasthoseoftheAfrikaneracademicMalherbeto soundrepeatedwarningstotheEnglishcommunityaboutsuchrisks(Malherbe,1966)torevive concernandactionoverfallingstandardsinEnglishmediumeducation. Whiteuniversities(nowlargelynonracialinadmissionspolicyexceptforsomeAfrikaansmedium examples)areeitherEnglishorAfrikaansmediumorboth(inthecaseoftheuniversitiesofPort ElizabethandSouthAfrica).Attendanceatalloftheseuniversitiesbynomeansfollowsthepattern ofthatatschools;thereissignificantintegrationoflanguageidentities,attendancefollowing ideologicalandpragmaticconsiderationsratherthanthoseofmediumexclusivity. Ideologicalcontrolisexertedatschoollevelthroughlanguage,particularlyAfrikaans,bymeansof curriculumcontentinAfrikaansandEnglishliterature.Controversiesrageaboutthelistingof authorswhoseworkstransmitconservativeoralienvalues,notthosefeltessentialtoeffecturgently neededpoliticalandsocialchange(Volbrecht,1984,andEsterhuyse,inprogress).T.Volbrecht, examiningtheteachingofEnglishasfirstlanguageinSAschools,presentsaconvincingargument thatthe"GreatTradition"ofliberalhumanismembodiedintheteachingofEnglishliteratureinthe Leavisitemodeunderpinsracialcapitalism,coexistentwithapartheid.Thus,thesocialformationof SAsocietyisinpartareactionaryoutcometothesociopoliticalvaluestransmittedthroughthe study,inthiscase,ofEnglish. J.Esterhuyse,inasimilarstudyoftheeffectsofprescribedliteratureandlanguagetextbooksinthe Afrikaanscurriculum,showshowethnocentrismresultsinideologicalcontroloverthestudyofthe Afrikaansmothertongue.Suchcontrolseriouslyinhibitsfreeaccesstoradicalorliberatory literatureinthecurriculum.Heshowshowtheselectiveworduseandnewwordcoinageof Afrikaansinschooltextsreflectstendenciestowardwhitesupremacistworldviewsbeinginculcated intheAfrikaansclassroom. 421

 LanguageEducation:QuoVadis? Inspiteoftheaboveportentsofcontinuedwhitesupremacybeingmaintainedthroughthe teachingoftheofficiallanguages,thereisother,morehearteningevidenceofasenseofurgency resultinginchangeintheteachingoflanguage.Inthewidersocialcontext,thelongheld prejudicesandclingingtolanguagegroupexclusivitiesappeartobediminishing.Muchhas resultedfromconcertedblackandcolouredprotestinthepasttenyears.TheDeLange Commission(1981)madesignificantproposalsforchange,anditssubcommitteeonLanguage Education,hastilyandbelatedlyconvened,hasrecommendedmajorchangesinlanguage educationpoliciesandpraxis.Therehasbeenwidespreaddevelopmentintheintroductionof appliedlinguisticscoursesatuniversities,andteachereducationprogramsincludesignificant componentsonlanguage,particularlysecondlanguageteaching.Traditionalhabitsoftrying importedsolutionstononexistentproblemshavegivenwaytoinspiredlocalquestioningand critiquesleadingtopositive,creativeaction,materialswriting,andteacherreeducationinsitu. RESEARCH ResearchintobilingualismperseinSAhasbeenscant,asshown.Efforthasconcentrated, especiallysince1976,ontheteachingofEnglishasasecondlanguage,thoughthislabelhas latelybeenquestionedbysomeblackandcolourededucationists(Mphalele,personal communication),whoresenttheimplicitequationwiththesecondclassstatusaccordedblacks andcoloureds.TESOL(TeachingEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages),followingtheU.S. model,isincreasinglypreferred.InTESOLresearch,thedominantmodehasbeenAction Research,understoodhereintomeaninterventionistworkaimedatinvolvingteachers/learnersin thewritingandproductionoftheirownmaterials,or,simply,insomecases,touseresearchinan appliedmodetoinfluencechangeinclassroomprocesses.Thelistingofsuchprojectsisan invidioustask,however.Thereare,forexample,someseventyTESOLrelatedprojectspresently functionalinSA,withseventeenpublicationslistedreportingworkinprogress(ValeandYoung, 1985). TheMoltenoProject TheMoltenoProjectisprobablythelargestandmostsignificantTESOLprojectinSA.Basedat RhodesUniversity,Grahamstown,itsmainthrustisworkledbyLanhamonthe"Bridgeto Literacy"inblackschoolsattheprimarylevel.ThisinvolvesBantumothertonguelanguage enliterationintoEnglishasthemediumofinstruction.ItisshowingmajorsuccessinTranskei andCiskei. 422

 SACHED(SouthAfricanCommitteeforHigherEducation) SACHEDisanalternative,distancedlearningprogramwhichhasproducedtwomajorTESOL courses(StaceyandKretchley,n.d.;SACHED,1984). TeacherOpportunitiesProgrammes(TOPS) TOPSisaprimaryschoolteacherupgradingproject.TheTESOLmethodologycomponentis beingproducedintheLanguageEducationUnit,DepartmentofEducation,intheUniversityof CapeTown.TheAfrikaansequivalentisproducedattheUniversityoftheWesternCape, Belville,Cape. AdultEducationCentres TheseareveryactiveinTESOLrelatedwork,particularlyatSt.FrancisAdultEducationCentre, Guguletu,CapeTown;theDepartmentofAdultEducationintheUniversityofCapeTown;and theCentreforContinuingEducation,UniversityoftheWitwatersrand,Johannesburg.Manyof theseprojectscenteronbasicliteracyandteacherupgrading. EnglishLanguageTeachingInformationCentre(ELTIC) BasedinJohannesburg,ELTICresearchesinserviceteachers'needs,runsinservicecourses,and producesmaterialsandaquarterlyjournal,ELTICReporter. InstitutefortheStudyofEnglishinAfrica BasedinGrahamstown,theInstitutecollatesanddoeswidespreadresearchintothefunctionof EnglishinAfrica,particularlyinlanguageteachingcontexts. HumanSciencesResearchCouncil ThemajornationalcoordinatingresearchbodyistheHumanSciencesResearchCouncilin Pretoria,whichfunds,commissions,anditselfconductssignificantsociolinguistic,linguistic, andappliedlinguisticresearch.Twoofitsrecentpublicationsareofimportinthebilingualism field.Inhissociolinguisticsurveyonblackattitudestolanguage,G.K.A.Schuringfoundthat Englishwasaprestigelanguageamongblacks,whereasAfrikaanshadmorepragmaticvalue.T. Hauptfleischconductedasurveyoftrendsrelatingtolanguageloyaltyandlanguageshiftamong whiteadultsinurbanareas,findingamajorlanguageshiftawayfromAfrikaanstoEnglishwhere marriagetoanEnglishspeakertookplace.Thisfinding,basedonaverysmallsample,linkswith otherHSRCprojectsconcerningtheattitudesofColouredstolanguage.TheHSRChasplayed, andcontinuestoplay,aroleinongoingresearchflowingfromtheDeLangeCom 423

mission'swork.Asagovernmentfundedcouncil,ithasneverthelessacquiredastrongreputationfor objectiveandindependentresearch.Muchofitsworkfocusesonlanguageteaching/learningin blackeducation. AcademicPrograms NearlyallSAuniversitiesoffergraduateandhigherdegreeresearchprogramsinappliedlinguistics, linguistics,andTESOL:Natal,Rhodes,SouthAfrica,Witwatersrand,CapeTown,andtheRand AfrikaansUniversity,Johannesburg.ThelasttwomentionedhaveLanguageEducationUnitsthat conductAfrikaanssecondlanguageandTESOLprojectsinblackandcolouredcommunities.A materialswritingprojectintheLanguageEducationUnitintheUniversityofCapeTowninvolving teachersinthewritingoftheirownTESOLmaterials,nowpublished(Cornell,1985),isofgreat interestasanexampleofactionresearch.Usingroleplayanddramatization,itshowswaysof markedlyimprovingspokenEnglishcommunicationskills.TheLanguageEducationUnitinthe RandAfrikaansUniversityhasdonesignificantworkonAfrikaansasasecondlanguageinSoweto. ItalsoconductsAfrikaansprogramsforEnglishspeakingbusinesspeople.TheInstitutefor LanguageStudy(INTUS)inStellenboschUniversitydoesworkontheteachingofblacklanguages. Workisalsodoneintheblackuniversities:theUniversityoftheNorthhasaLanguageBureauthat teachesandresearcheslanguages.SomeworkisalsodoneattheUniversityofFortHare.The universitiesofBophuthatswanaandZululandarealsobeginningworkonappliedlinguisticthemes. ResearchAssociations SAhasnumerouslanguageorientedassociationsandsocieties,ofwhichthefollowingseem relevantherein. SAALA(SouthAfricanAppliedLinguisticsAssociation)holdsanannualconferenceonthemes relatedtolanguageteaching. SAALT(SouthAfricanAssociationofLanguageTeachers)hassimilarconferencesandpublishesa regularjournal,theSAALTJournal,basedintheRandAfrikaansUniversity. LSSA(LinguisticSocietyofSouthAfrica)alsoholdsannualconferencesonlinguistictheory themes.Itpublishesajournal,Taalfasette,annually. ALASA(AfricanLanguagesAssociationofSouthAfrica)holdssimilarmeetingsonAfrican languagethemes. LanguageCommitteeoftheFAK(AfrikaansCulturalAssociation)iscommittedtopromotingthe Afrikaanslanguageanditsculture.Itpublishesamagazine,Handhaaf. TheEnglishAcademyofSouthernAfrica,basedinJohannesburg,iscommittedtomaintaining standardsofEnglishusageanduse,particularlyinEnglishlanguageteaching,thisteachingbeing functionallyachievedthroughELTIC,listedabove. 424

SACEE(SouthAfricanCouncilforEnglishEducation)promotestheteachingofEnglishand awardsbursariesforteachertraininginthisfield. ResearchDirections Theurgencyoftheneedtoprovidepracticalsolutionstoovercomelanguagelearningproblemsina multilingualsocietyhaslargelyoverriddenthetemptationtodomoretheoreticalresearch.One directionforasynthesisofpragmaticswiththeoryisfoundintheworknowbeingdonebyK.Chick intheUniversityofNatal,Durban.InspiredbyastayattheUniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles, workingunderGumperz,Chickassertsthatapartheidisinteractionallyaccomplishedin,for example,ZuluEnglishcommunication,bymeansofEnglishspeakers'discriminatoryuseof prosodicfeaturesinEnglish,inintonationcontours,revealingsuchattitudesaspatronization,or "talkingdown"usingforeignerstalk.Chick'sthesisisthatpoliticalchangeawayfromracial discriminationcannotbesolelystructural,butmustattendtothesocialdynamicofblackwhite interactionatverbalandnonverballevelsaswell(Chick,1983). TheHumanSciencesResearchCouncil,Pretoria,isperhapsthebestcontactaddressforinformation relatingtoanyoftheaboveresearchbodiesandactivities. CONCLUSION NoattempthasbeenmadeinthischaptertolocateSAbilingualismontheinternationalspectrumof bilingualsocietiesandcommunities,suchastheSovietUnion,theUnitedStates,Canada,orWales, norhastherebeenaclassificationoftheSAphenomenonintermsofthetypologysuggestedbyE. GlynLewis(1982:341).ThelackofdetailedresearchtodateonthistopicinSA,groundedin politicalsensitivitiesandoverzealousgrouployalties,limitsthebaseofobjectivedataonwhichto buildsuchconclusivestatements.Fewattitudinalsurveyshavebeenconductedexceptinthelimited projectsoftheHSRCdiscussedabove. Objectivityisthuselusive,sincebeingawhitewriternotevenrepresentativeofaminorityculture, inamulticulturalsocietywherethemajorityblackcultureisunenfranchisedandpolitically powerless,discreditsone'sessayinthatonecannotspeakonbehalfofthatmajority. BilingualisminSAisassociatedwithpoliticallymotivatedaimstopreservethelanguagerightsof speakersofAfrikaansandEnglishandtoensurethefreeuseandeducationinthemothertongue, themothertonguedefinedas"thelanguagewithwhichtheyaremostfamiliar."Buttheresistanceto extendededucationinthemothertongueorvernacularbeyondearlyprimaryschoolingisstrongin blackeducationandhasresultedintheadoptionofEnglishasthemediumfromthefifthyearof schooling,inkeepingwithmanyotherindependentAfricancountries,forexample,Ghana,Kenya, Lesotho,Uganda,Malawi,Nigeria,andSwaziland,allofwhichintroduceEnglishmedium instructionfromaboutthefourthyearofschooling(HSRC,1981).Butunlikethepositioninany 425

ofthesecountries,thedecisiontoadoptEnglishwasreachedinSAonlyafterviolentpolitical conflictandblackprotestagainstaperceivedattempttomaintainethnicityaspartofthepolicy ofapartheid.ItcanbearguedthatlanguageplanningpolicieshavebeenusedtodivideSA societyintoethnicunits,thoughtheseattemptshavefailed;thereisapowerfuldrivefora commonSAlanguage,English,albeitthatspokenasmothertonguebyonlyabout8percentof thepopulation.ThisisnotnecessarilyoutofgreatloveforEnglish,whichisalsoidentifiedwith colonizationandjingoism,butoutofareluctancebythemajoritytouseAfrikaansbecauseofits usebyagovernmentenforcingoppressiveracialsegregation. ApologistsfortheSAgovernmentwillarguethatsignificantrapidchangeandreformarenow underway.Relativetothestatusquo,thereissometruthintheirrejoinder,butintermsof languageplanningandbilingualpolicymaking,provisionneedstobemadeforasystemthatwill erasedemarcationsbasedonlinguisticethnocentrism,sothattheofficiallanguagesarenolonger perceivedasinstrumentsofpowerandcontroloftheblackmajoritybyawhiteminority.There arefirmpointerstowidespreadinterlanguagetolerancenotevidenttenyearsago.Thereinlies somemeasureofhopefortheemergenceofacommonSouthAfricansociety,freeofunilateral bilingualism,butratherrichinmultilingualism. BIBLIOGRAPHY AshleyM.J.1974."SocializationandEducation."InWhiteSouthAfricanElites,ed.H.W.van derMerwe,M.J.Ashley,N.C.J.Charton,andB.J.Huber.CapeTown:JutaandCo.,pp.3960. BranfordJ.183).DictionaryofSouthAfricanEnglish,1980.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. BughwanD.1970."AnInvestigationintotheUseofEnglishbyIndiansinSouthAfricawith SpecialReferencetoNatal."Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofSouthAfrica,Pretoria. ChickK.1983."TheInteractionalAccomplishmentofDiscriminationinSouthAfrica." Unpublishedpaper,UniversityofNatal,Durban. CombrinkJ.G.H.1978."Afrikaans:ItsOriginandDevelopment."InLanguageand CommunicationStudiesinSouthAfrica,ed.L.W.LanhamandK.Prinsloo.CapeTown:Oxford UniversityPress,pp.6995. CornellC.1985."EnglishThroughRolePlayandDramatizationintheClassroom."University ofCapeTown:LanguageEducationUnit. DeP.Lange1981."LanguagesandLanguageInstruction:ReportoftheWorkCommittee." Pretoria:HumanSciencesResearchCouncil,pp.1252. EsterhuyseJ.1985.UnpublishedM.Ed.Dissertation.DepartmentofEducation,Universityof CapeTown. FishmanJ.1977.BilingualEducation,anInternationalPerspective.Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House. HauptfleischT.1979.LanguageLoyaltyinSouthAfrica.Vols.14.Pretoria:HumanSciences

ResearchCouncil,ReportTLK/L10. 426

HeeseH.1985.GroepSondeGrense:DieRolenStatusvandieGemengdeBevolkingaandieKaap, 16521795.CapeTown:NasionaleBoekhandel. KennedyC.,ed.1983.LanguagePlanningandLanguageEducation.London:GeorgeAllanand Unwin,pp.416. KitchingC.J.1984."TheCommunicativeCompetenceinEnglishofAfrikaansSpeakingTeacher Trainees."M.Ed.diss.,DepartmentofEducation,UniversityofCapeTown. KroesH.1978."AfrikaansinEducation."InLanguageandCommunicationStudiesinSouthAfrica, edL.W.LanhamandK.P.Prinsloo.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.16986. LabovW.1969."TheLogicofNonstandardEnglish."InLanguageandSocialContext,ed.P. Giglioli.Harmondsworth:Penguin. LanhamL.W.1978."AnOutlineHistoryoftheLanguagesofSouthAfrica."InLanguageand CommunicationStudiesinSouthAfrica,ed.L.W.LanhamandK.P.Prinsloo.CapeTown:Oxford UniversityPress,pp.1352. LanhamL.W.,andK.P.Prinsloo,1978.LanguageandCommunicationStudiesinSouthAfrica. CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPres. Leschinsky.C.C.J.1985.SouthAfricanLanguageReview.Pretoria:HSRC,pp.164. LewisE.Glyn.1982.BilingualismandBilingualEducation.Oxford:PergamonPress. MalherbeE.G.1925.EducationinSouthAfrica.Vol.1:16521922.CapeTown:JutaandCo. .1938.ExaminationsinSouthAfrica.TheYearBookofEducation.London. .1966.DemographicandSocialFactorsDeterminingthePositionofEnglishintheSouth AfricanRepublic.Johannesburg:EnglishAcademyofSouthernAfrica,pp.122. .1977.EducationinSouthAfrica.Vol.2:192375.CapeTown:JutaandCo. McCormickK.1983.AttitudestotheOfficialLanguagesandTheirDialectsinCapeTown.Cape Town:UniversityofCapeTownCentreforAfricanStudies,pp.410. MillerJ.1983.ManyVoices:Bilingualism,CultureandEducation.London:RoutledgeandKegan Paul. ParsonsN.J.1982.ANewHistoryofSouthAfrica.London:MacmillanCo.,pp.525,98. RandalP.1984.LittleEnglandontheVeld.Johannesburg:RavanPress. RepublicofSouthAfrica(RSA).1961.Constitution.Pretoria:GovernmentPrinter. .1980.Census.Pretoria:CentralStatisticalServices. SouthAfricanInstituteforRaceRelations(SAIRR).1984.RaceRelationsSurvey,1983. Johannesburg:SAIRR. SchuringG.K.A.n.d.MultilingualSociety:EnglishandAfrikaansAmongsttheBlacksintheRSA. Pretoria:HSRC,ReportTLK/17. StaceyJ.,andG.Kretchley.n.d.ReadWell.Johannesburg:SACHED. StaceyJ.,andG.Kretchley.n.d.WriteWell.Johannesburg:SACHED. TrudgillP.,andJ.Hannan.1982.InternationalEnglish,AGuidetoVarietiesofStandardEnglish. London:Arnold. ValeL.,andD.Young.1985.ADirectoryofTESOLProjectsinSouthAfrica.CapeTown: UniversityofCapeTown,LanguageEducationUnit.

vanE.B.Wyk1978."LanguageContactandBilingualism."InLanguageandCommunication StudiesinSouthAfrica 427

municationStudiesinSouthAfrica,ed.L.W.LanhamandK.P.Prinsloo.CapeTown:Oxford UniversityPress,pp.2952. VolbrechtT.1984."TheArticulationoftheSocialFormationwiththeTeachingofEnglishasaFirst LanguageintheCapeEducationDepartment."M.Phil.diss.,DepartmentofEducation,University ofCapeTown. YoungD.N.1978."EnglishinEducation."InLanguageandCommunicationStudiesinSouth Africa,ed.L.W.LanhamandK.P.Prinsloo.CapeTown:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.187214. 428

22 BILINGUALEDUCATIONINSOVIETCENTRALASIA M.MobinShorish TheSovietUnionisthelargestcountryintheworld,anditisalsooneofthemostlinguistically varied.Fewcountrieshavedevotedasmuchtimediscussingandanalyzingtheproblemsassociated withmultilingualismastheUSSR.Inordertosolvetheseproblems,especiallythoseinthefieldsof educationandcommunication,theUSSRformulatedmanypolicies,plans,andprogramsand implementedthembyvariousmeans,rangingfromcoerciontocooptation.However,theeffortsof thecentralgovernmenthavenotalwaysmetwithfavorwiththenonRussiannationalitiesofthe country. In1980,theUSSRhadapopulationofabout265million(NarodnoeKhoziaistvoSSSRv1980 godu:7),constitutingmorethanonehundredlinguisticallyvariedpeople.Thesepeoplearealso differentintermsoftheirreligionandotherattributesthatordinarilymarktheethnicboundariesof agroup. TheUSSRfederationcomprisesfifteenrepublics.Eachrepublicisnamedafterthepeoplewho, withtheexceptionoftheKazakhpeople,constitutethemajority(sometimesonlybarely)ofthe populationinthatrepublic.StartingfromtheBalticandgoingcounterclockwiseontheSoviet Union'smap,weencountertheEstonians,Latvians,Lithuanians,Belorussians,Ukrainians, Moldavians,Georgians,Armenians,Azerbaijanis,Turkmans,Uzbeks,Kirgiz,Tajiks,andKazakhs. 1ThesocalledGreatRussians,whoatpresentconstitutealittlemorethan50percentofthe country'spopulation,alsooccupythelargestunionrepublic. ThesestatisticsgivesomeideaofthecomplexityofthelinguisticsceneintheUSSR.Theproblem getsevenmorecomplicatedwhenweattempttoanalyzethelinguisticnationalismofthevarious nationalitiesontheonehandandtheideologicalimperativeofthecountryontheother. TheUSSRisofficiallycommittedtothecreationofaproletariansocietywith 429

ahomogenizedproletarianculture.Apparently,thissystemalsoincludesalanguage.Although noonehasclearlystatedwhatthatlanguagewouldbe(asthediscussionsthatfollowwill illustrate),thesocialistnotablesoftheUSSRhaveleftlittledoubtintheirutterancesaboutthe primacyoftheRussianlanguageinthismultilingualcountry.Thisideologicalimperativehas createdpoliticalproblemsfortheSoviets.Apparently,notallpeoplesoftheUSSRseethe existenceofahomogenizedSovietproletariatcultureasagoodthing.Theyfeartherussification oftheirlanguages,aswellasotheraspectsoftheircultures.TheRussianpeoples'monopolyof poweroverthedistributionofresourcesintheUSSRimpliesthisrussification. TheanxietyofthenonRussianpeoplehasnotbeenlostontheSovietgovernmentandthe CommunistpartyoftheUSSR.Fromthebeginning,theyhavetriedtocometotermswithtwo mutuallyexclusivepolicies.Ontheonehand,theSovietstrytotolerate(andattimesencourage) thenationalismofvariousminorities,and,ontheotherhand,theytrytointegratethepeople towardtherealizationofthehomogeneousproletariatculture. Understandably,almostallofthecentralgovernment'sattemptstocreateastandardizedSoviet culturehavebeeninterpretedbytheminoritiesasaployforrussificationoftheircultures.In ordertoreassurethenonRussians,theUSSRproclaimeditsnationalitypoliciesas"nationalism incontentandsocialisminform."ThismeantthatvariousethnicgroupsintheUSSRcanuse theirownmothertonguesandtheliteraturethatgoeswiththem,providedtheyreflecttheSoviet brandofsocialism.Asaconsequence,theSovietshavethelaborioustaskoftryingtofindthe "appropriate"passagesfromliterature,aswellaspolicingtheeverydayconversationsofthe peopleforsignsofdeviance.Onlyrecently,forexample,havesomeoftheRussianclassicslike thosebyFyodorDostoyevskybeenpublishedintheUSSR. Themultiprongedconflictbetweenthestateanditsideologicalimperativewhichpushesfor integrationandthenationalismofethnicgroups(whichinturnleadstogreaterdifferentiation) continuestopersistintheUSSR.Theconflictthatcontinuesbetweendifferentnationalitiesalso exists,suchastheenmitybetweentheRussiansandmostothernationalminorities.Agood exampleofthisconflictriddensceneisSovietCentralAsia.ThelanguagepolicyoftheUSSR seemstobeoneofthemajorcontributorstothisclash. CentralAsiaisthesouthernmostpartoftheUSSR.ItbordersthePeople'sRepublicofChina (PRC)intheeastandIraninthewest.Ithasitslinguisticallyandculturallyidenticalgroups straddlingthecommonboundariesitshareswithAfghanistan,Iran,andthePRC.Itiscomposed ofmorethanadozennationalities,someofwhich(e.g.,theSlavs)arenewcomersinthearea, whileothershavebeenthereforcenturies.Themajorindigenousgroups(incontrasttothe Europeannewcomers)aretheUzbeks,Kirgiz,andTurkmanpeoples.ThesepeoplesspeakTurkic andoccupytheunionrepublicsbearingtheirnames.TheotherimportantCentralAsiangroup withitsownrepublicaretheTajikswhospeakanIndoIranianlanguage. Historically,thesepeoplehavealwaysconsideredtheirownIslamicheritage 430

andthelanguagesarticulatingitassuperiortothoseofferedbytheircolonizers,theRussians.Asa result,theyhaveperceivedtheirlearningtheRussianlanguageasapreludetotheirown acculturationtotheRussianwayoflife.TheIslamicreligionencourageslearning,includingthe learningoflanguages.Apparently,theCentralAsians,whoconsiderthemselvesoppressed,are reluctanttolearntheRussianlanguagebecauseitisthelanguageoftheoppressors. ThisattitudeoftheindigenouspeoplehasinpartbeenaresponsetotheRussians'crassandovertly racistattitudestowardtheCentralAsians(WimbushandAlexiev,1980),andhasinturnhampered theprogramsofTeachingRussianasaSecondLanguage(TRSL).TheRussianshaveruledformore thanacenturyandhavemadeconsciouseffortstoacculturatetheCentralAsians,firstunderthe auspicesoftheOrthodoxChurchandlater,uptothepresenttime,throughtheeffortsoftheRussian governmentoftheUSSR.Inspiteoftheseefforts,CentralAsianslagbehindotherSovietethnic minoritiesintheiracquisitionoftheRussianlanguage. ThisstudyisanassessmentofthetheoriesandpracticesofteachingRussiantotheindigenous 2 TurkicandIranianspeakingpeopleofSovietCentralAsia. Morespecifically,itdescribesthe processesbywhichtheTRSLprogramsareimplementedintheclassroomsofCentralAsia. Languageacquisition,likeotherformsoflearning,isinfluencedbymanyfactors,notallofwhich arepresentintheschoolenvironment.Thepresentstudyassumesthatschoolingisimportantinthe acquisitionofasecondlanguage.Itisimportantasanapparent"best"alternativetononformaltypes ofeducationlikeonthejobtrainingalone.Itisalsoclearthatthe"best"alternativebyitselfdoes notleadtothebestresults.Forthistohappen,thediscoveryanddevelopmentofsupportive economic,social,cultural,andpoliticalinstitutionsarenecessary.Anotherfactorsignifyingthe importanceoftheschoolisthatthedemandforlanguagelearning,likethedemandforotherforms oflearning,isderived.Themoreonelearnsandbecomeseducated,themoreonewantstocontinue learning.Thisdemandbecomesmoreclearwhenthesocietyattachesvariousrewardpackagesto variouslevelsofeducationanddifferenttypesofcompetencycredentials.Tolearners,theoretically successivelevelsofeducationprovidegreaternumbersofoptionsamongalternativefutures.Oneof themostimportantoptionsseemstobetheabilitytobesociallyandspatiallymobileintheUSSR. InCentralAsia,learningsomeRussianpermitsonetomoveintotheurbancentersoftheareawhere therearemoreopportunitiestomoveuptheoccupationalstructureandaugmentone'slevelof linguisticcompetence.Inspiteofthispotentialadvantage,theproportionofCentralAsiansfluentin RussianlagsbehindtheaverageofallothernonRussiansfluentinthatlanguage(ascensusdata show). Itisdifficulttoisolatethefactorsthatmaybecontributingtothislag.Someofthesefactorsare discussedhere,andothersmaybeanchoredinthepeople'scultures,traditions,andsocial psychologicalmakeup,someofwhichwasmentionedearlier. SovietCentralAsiaiscomposedoftherepublicsofTajikistan,Uzbekistan, 431

Turkmenistan,andKirgizistan.In1979,thetitularpeoplelivingintheserepublicscomposedabout 20millionpersonsscatteredover1.2millionsquarekilometers(NarodnoeKhoziaistvoSSSRv 1980G:24).Theareahashadexperienceswithnumerousalphabetspriortotheintroductionofthe Cyrillicscriptinthelate1930s(Gibb,1928;Bashakov,1967;Shorish,1984).Themostimportant alphabetspriortothepresentoneseemtohavebeenthoseofArabicandLatin.TheArabicalphabet cameintotheareaafterCentralAsiawasoverrunbytheIranIslamicarmiesintheeighthcentury. Thisalphabetcontinuedasameansofcommunicationandinstructionintheschoolsuntilthelatter halfofthe1920swhenitwasreplacedbytheLatinalphabet.In1938,theCyrillicalphabetwas introducedinCentralAsia,whereitreplacedtheLatinalphabetalmosttotallyinallprintedmaterial bytheearly1940s.Inaddition,onMarch13,1938,byadecreeoftheCentralCommitteeofthe CommunistpartyoftheUSSR,theteachingoftheRussianlanguagebecamecompulsoryinthe schoolsofthenonRussianpeople,includingthoseresidinginCentralAsia(Shukurov,1957:76). Bythemiddleof1938,almostalloftheCentralAsianrepublicshadadoptedsimilardecreesonthe compulsoryteachingoftheRussianlanguage.ThetaskofpreparingtheRussianteachersfelltothe CommissariatofEducationofeachrepublic.Owingtotheextremescarcityofsuchteachersatthe timeinCentralAsia,therepublicsstartedimportingmanyteachersfromtheSlavicspeakingareas oftheUSSR.ManyRussianteachersforthesecondaryandincompletesecondaryschoolswere providedbyvariousotherunionrepublics,especiallytheRSFSR(Russiaproper).In1938,for example,Tajikistanreceived368teachersfromtheRussianrepublicmentionedabove,andCentral AsiansstartedmassiveRussianlanguageteachertrainingprograms.Bytheendof1939,almostfive thousandteachersoftheRussianlanguageforgradestwothroughfourweretrainedinTajikistan alone(Shukurov,1957:76ff). NumerousconferencesandmeetingstolegitimizetheconversiontotheCyrillicalphabetandto legitimizeandexpandtheteachingofRussianinCentralAsiahavetakenplaceoverthepastseveral years.OneofthemostimportantofthesemeetingstookplaceinAlmaAtain1962.Itwastitledthe "ConferenceontheDevelopmentofLiteraryLanguages"andhadasitsmainconcernthecreation ofcommonlexicalstocksforthelanguagesoftheUSSR.However,asE.G.Lewispointsout,in actualitytheconferencewastoinvestigatetherelationshipsofalltheselanguagestothatofRussian (Lewis,1974:58).TheresultsofalltheserelationshipshavebeenacontinuousinflowofRussian words,oftenattheexpenseoflocaltermsinalmostallnonRussianlanguagesoftheUSSR.The reactionsoftheindigenouspeopletothissituationhavebeenvaried.(Pool,1976;TojikistoniSoveti, henceforthTS,March6,1966:4. ThefirstinterrepublicanconferenceonthestudyofRussianintheseMuslimrepublicstookplacein TashkentinAugust1965,followingthereorganizationoftheSovietschoolsundertheprovisionof thesocalledKhrushchevReforms.Similarconferenceshavetakenplacesincethentodiscuss variousaspectsof 432

teachingRussianasasecondlanguage.Theresultsoftheseconferenceshavebeentoincrease significantlythenumberofhoursdevotedtotheRussianlanguageandRussianlanguagerelated materialsinthenonRussianschools(RahbariDonish,1930:13;King,1936:31214;UzbekSSR, 1939:1316;CentralAsianReview,henceforthCAR,1961:27;MaorifvMadanivat,henceforthMvM, May19,1970:4,June7,1957:4,September10,1974:4). AconferenceofteachersoftheRussianlanguagewasheldinDushanbeonMarch28,1968,in whichtheroleoftheRussianlanguageinthe"bringingtogether"(nazdikshavi,sblizhenie)ofthe socialistnationswasdiscussed.Themeetingwasaddressedbyoneofthesecretariesofthe CommunistpartyofTajikistan,I.Rahimova,whodeclaredthatthelearningoftheRussianlanguage wasthe"greatestweaponatthehandofourpartyintheprocessofunificationofallSovietpeople" (MvM,March30,19683).OtherconferencesonvariouspedagogicalaspectsofTRSLhavebeen takingplaceoverthepastdecadesattherepublicanandfederallevels(Baskakov,1968).Inallof theseRussianlanguageconferencesandrelatedmaterialappearingintheSovietpress,thereseems tobeoneconsistentandconcurrenttheme:theglorificationoftheRussianlanguageandthe rationalizationofitsdominantpositioningovernmentandcommerce. ThethesesoftheCentralCommitteeoftheCommunistpartyofSovietUnion(CCofCPSU)and theCouncilofMinistersoftheUSSR,RegardingtheStrengtheningoftheRelationshipofSchool andfortheFurtherDevelopmentoftheSystemofPublicEducationintheUSSR,werepublishedon November16,1958.Thisdocumentpresentstheofficialview.Thenineteenthclausereadsas follows: IntheSovietschools,instructionisconductedinthenativelanguage.Thisisoneofthe moreimportantachievementsoftheLeninistnationalpolicy.Atthesametimeinthe unionandautonomousrepublicsisalsostudiedtheRussianlanguagewhichisagreat meansofinternationalcommunication,ofstrengtheningoffriendshipamongthe peoplesoftheUSSRandofintroducingthemtothetreasuresofRussianandworld culture(Kolasky,1968:26). StudyingtheRussianlanguageisimportantnotonlybecauseitisa"window"totheoutsideworld, butalsobecauseitisthevehicleofinternationalcommunicationandfriendshipamongpeople.Few wouldwanttounderminesuchanarrangementbynotoptingforthestudyoftheRussianlanguage. Moreover,atthepresenttime,withoutknowledgeoftheRussianlanguageitwouldbeimpossibleto becomeaSovietleader.Thus,Russianisaprerequisiteforupwardsocial,political,andeconomic mobility. TherearestillotherstimuliforlearningRussian.Forexample,"[the]Russianlanguageisthemost importantmeansinthemakingofaCommunist;onecanlearnethicalbehavior,patriotism,etc.,by readingGorkii,Turgenev,and...storiesbyGogolmakesoneselflessindefenseofthemotherland" (Zhuravleya,1968:4).A.K.Kanimetrov,aformerMinisterofEducationoftheKirgizSSR, 433

claimsthatthosewholearnRussianbecomebetterstudentsandadjustbetterinlife(TS,November 10,1972:4).Anotherexampleis,"Thechildrenmustbepreparedtofulfilltheirdutytothe motherland,tostudyarduouslytheRussianlanguage,inwhicharewrittentheregulations,military orders,andinstructionsinwhichtheircomradesandcommanderswillspeak"(RusskiiIazyki LiteraturavAzerbaidzhanskoiShkole,henceforthRIILASH,1973,No.8:5).Alastexampleshows thatRussian isthelanguageofLenin,Gorkii,theCommunistParty...Maiakovskii;itisthe languageofkosmonauts;itisthelanguageofthecountry....Moreover,thegreat literaryfiguresoftheTajikliteraturesuchasRudaki,IbniSino,Fidausi,NosirKhisrav, UmarKhayyom,Sa'di,Hofiz,Jomi,Bedil,andAhmadMakhdumDonishwere competentinmorethanonelanguage(Asrori,1966:4). AnotherareathatgetsagreatamountofemphasisforthelearningofRussianisscienceand technologyandtheculturaldevelopmentofthenonRussians.Forexample: LearningRussianmakesonemoral;itmakesonegraspscientificandtechnicalknowledge;itbrings peopletogether;increasesone'ssocialandpoliticalmobility;leadstothedevelopmentofthe socialistperson;leadstotheeconomicdevelopmentofthecountry;increasesfriendshipamongthe largeandsmallpeoples;itgivesneededideologicalandpoliticalcontenttothedevelopmentofthe young;itreflectsthelevelofknowledgeandthespiritofinternationalismandsocialismofan individual(Uspenskaia,1975:2). Allofthesequalitiesare,ofcourse,empiricalquestionsthathavenotbeenvalidated.Thatis,the authors(bothindigenousandEuropeans)seemtohavesomesortoffaithinthepowerofthe Russianlanguagetocausebehavioralchangesinindividualstothedegreethatismentionedabove. Someoftherhetoricinthesestatementsisreminiscentbothoftherhetoriconceespousedby GeneralK.P.vonKaufmanwhenhewasGovernorGeneraloftheRussianTurkistan,andofthe preachingofV.I.Il'minskii.BothbelievedthattheRussiaandtheRussianculture,includingthe OrthodoxChurch,ofthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturywasareferenceculturethatwould drawnonRussianstoitandtherebyelevatetheirculturallevel(Pierce,1960). CanRussianbecomethelanguageofthepeopleoftheUSSR?Toanswerthisquestion,onehasto lookcarefullyattheSovietlinguisticpoliciesinwhichsomeoftheabovestatementsareanchored, andattheprogramsandplansthathavebeendesignedfortheirimplementation. Theultimateaimof(Soviet)socialandlinguisticpolicywasstatedbyStalinasearlyas theXVIthCongress"thefusionofnations,languagesandcultures"andthisultimate objectivehasneverbeenabandonedorevenmodifiedexcepttotheextentthatwas originallysetoutasadeclarationofintentisnowprogressivelyarticulatedasamaturing program(Lewis,1972:54). 434

ButstatementsbyLeninandStalindonotleaveanydoubtaboutthevirtuesofcentralizationandthe suitability,ifnotthesuperiority,oftheRussianlanguageasameansofcommunicationand instruction(Lenin,1968:2).Theideaofmergingnationsintoasinglesocialistpeople,apparently sharingonesinglelanguageamongmanyotherthings,wasfordecadestheovertlinguisticpolicyof theUSSRandhasnowbeenmodifiedsomewhat.Inaddition,theelementofcoercionhasbeen replacedbysetsofapparentlysuperiorstimuli,someofwhichwerelistedabove.Thesenewstimuli areproductsofthepresentrelativelyhighlevelsofeconomic,educational,political,andsocial developmentoftheUSSR.TheyputadegreeofpressureonthecreationofRussianasthelanguage ofthecountry. Itisapushpullsituation.OneispushedtolearnRussianbyone'speers,themassmedia,andthe Sovietculturalandpoliticalinstitutions.Oneisalsopulledbyunparalleledrewardsintheformof spatialandsocialmobility.Alloftheseforcesareapparentlyexertedwithoutmakingasacrificein theformoflosingtheallegianceofthemembersofone'scommunityorone'slanguage(Rashidov, 1975:13). SomeopinionsdiffermarkedlyfromthoseexpressedbythelateSharafRashidov(formerFirst SecretaryoftheUzbekCommunistpartyandaCandidateMemberofthePoliticalBureauofthe USSRCommunistparty).Theseopinionshavebeenexpressedbythosewholookathimasa "russified"native,a"cosmopolitanist"(Shorish,1981:Carrred'Encausse,1980).Itisalso necessarytorealizethatprobablyveryfewlanguagesotherthanRussianhaveinspiredsuch intensivepropaganda.Printedandelectronicmedia,scholarlyjournals,andbookshaveallfocused onthecauseoftheRussianlanguageinrecentyears.WhereveronegoesinCentralAsia,onefeels thepressureforlearningtheRussianlanguage. Noonecanworkeffectivelyinanyoftheurbancentersofthisareawithoutsomeknowledgeofthe Russianlanguage.Almostallofthestreetsignsandthosedescribingmeansoftransportationarein Russian.TelevisionandradioprogramsaredominatedbytheRussianlanguage.Randomweeksof televisionprograms(from1974to1985inMvM,KomsomoliTojikistan,andTS)revealedthatthe materialsaboutandintheRussianlanguageamountedtomorethan75percentoftotalbroadcasting time.Asforradio,Russianlanguagerelatedprogramsconsumedmorethan55percentofthetotal broadcastingtimeofRadioDushanbe.Ofcourse,thereisalwaysthepossibilitythatsomepeople willtuneintoradioandTVprogramsotherthanthoseoriginatingintheUSSR. Inspiteofalltheseefforts,CentralAsiansstilllagbehindtherestofthenonRussianpopulationof theUSSRintheacquistionofRussian.ThisfacthasnotbeenlostontheSovietauthorities,who havebeencomplainingaboutthepoorqualityofTRSLinCentralAsia(Besemeres,1975; Murtazoev,1984:45).Asearlyas1950,themostcommoncasesoffailuresinschoolsinMordavia, Bashkiria,andTataristanattheelementarylevelwasfailureintheRussianlanguage(Valitov, 1952:67).EventhoughtheproblemcitedwasfortheRSFSR, 435

itisequallytruefortheveryhighrateoffailureofthenonSlavicchildrenelsewhereinthe USSR.TheproblemoffailureinRussianconstitutesoneofthemajoreducationalproblemsof theSovietUnion. FromthestandpointofSovieteducators,severalmajorproblemsseemtohavecontributedto studentfailuresandhavepersistedinTRSLinCentralAsiaoverseveraldecades.Theseperennial problemsfallintotwogeneralcategories.Thefirstconcernsthestudentsandproblems associatedwiththelinguisticsandpedagogyofsecondlanguagelearning.Thesecondconcerns theteachersofRussian,theirtrainingandthelogisticsrequiredforRussianlanguageteaching. WhenlearningRussian,CentralAsianstudentsexperiencegreatorthographicandpronunciation problems.Theorthographicmistakesassociatedwithincorrectpronunciationalsosuggestthat teachersshouldpaycloserattentiontothestudents'mothertonguetoseeifsomeoftheproblem ofpronunciationmayliethere(Kliueva,1952:77). Oneofthemostimportantconcernsofeducatorsovertheyearshasbeentheverylowlexical stocksofnonSlavicchildren,whooftenmemorizewordswithoutbeingabletoperceivetheir meanings,assomeofthesewordswereabsentfromtheirlanguages(Mokhov,1952:64j364; Kissen,1952:6162;Tarzimanov,1952:65566;BoitsovaandVarkovitskaia,1952:6669).The problemofpronunciation,orthographicmistakes,grammaticalerrors,andinabilitytodistinguish betweenconsonantsandvowelsalllendthemselvestopoorsyntaxforthechildrenoflocal CentralAsians(CAR,1953:4344,1954:18789).Theproblemisnowheremoreapparentthan amongruralchildrenwhoareunabletospeakandwriteasimpleRussiansentenceaftertenyears ofinclassinstruction(CAR,1957:38;Medlin,Cave,andCarpenter,1971:105). OneofthemostcontroversialandconflictriddenaspectsoftheTRSLprograminCentralAsia hasbeentheroleandplaceofthemothertongueintheprocessoflearningRussian.Inthe contextofSovietlinguisticpolicy,thepoliticsoflanguagehasoftenovershadowedvalid pedagogicalandlinguisticdiscussionsofthesubject.ThenonSlavicCentralAsianshave frequentlyblamedtheRussianteacher'slackofknowledgeofthestudent'smothertonguesasone ofthemoreimportantinhibitorsofthesuccessfulteachingofRussian,therebycausingthe failureofCentralAsianchildrentoscorehigherinRussianlanguageclasses(Makhmudova, 1974:620).ThefollowingrepresentsaKazakh'sreaction: IgnoranceoftheKazakhlanguageonthepartoftheteacherreactsunfavorablyonhis teaching.Theteacheroftenwastesmuchtimeandeffortexplainingsomewordsand constructionsofsentencesthroughthemediumofRussian,whichisnotfully understood(bythestudents)bytheendofhisdiscussion(KazakhstankaiaPravda, 1956:2). TheargumentagainstthemothertongueasthemediumofTRSLtakesplaceonapparentsocial psychologicalandlinguisticgrounds.Simplystated,someSovieteducatorsthinkthat,in isolatingthelearnerfromtheimpactofthemothertongueanddevelopinga"Russianonly" environment,onecanincreasetherate 436

ofacquisitionoftheRussianlanguage.A.M.Dzhafarzoda,inastudyofbilingualism(Russian Azeri),foundhigherfrequenciesofbilingualsinurbanandworkers'villagesthaninplacesthat couldnotaffordthetypeofinfrastructures(media,othermeansofcommunication,factories,andso forth)conducivetobilingualism(Dzhafarzoda,1973:8287).Thesedebatesdonottakeintoaccount thefunctionofthemothertongueintheoveralleducativeprocessoftheyoung.Instead,agreat manyRussiansandsomenonRussianscholarsandpoliticiansinsistonaprogramofTRSLwhich makesRussianthe"secondmothertongue"ofthenonRussianpeople.Apparently,theterm "secondmothertongue"ismeanttoimplytheabilityofthelearnertothinkinRussianaswellasin themothertongue(Radzhabova,1973:311). ManywritersinsistonusingRussianasamediumofTRSL."Thepresentmethodofteaching RussianinNationalschoolsrequireslimitations,asmuchaspossible,oftheinfluenceofthemother tongue"(Uspenskaia,1975).Suchstatementsareoftenmadewithoutclearandadequate substantiation,andtoomanyofthemaredocumentedbyappealingtoauthoritieswhoareeither unknowntothereaderornotauthoritiesintheareaofspecialization.AppealstopeoplelikeIbrahim Altynsarin(18411889,KazakhprotegeoftheTsaristmissionaryworkerIl'minskii),Marx,Engels, andothers,whoseinterestsinlinguisticsandsecondlanguageteachinghavebeentangential,isan alltoocommonstrategy. Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatseriousdiscussionsofthistopicarenottakingplaceatother levelsintheUSSR'sacademiccircles.Thequestionoflanguagepolicyandproblemsinlinguistics havebeendiscussedinthispartoftheworldwithmuchmoreintensity,atahigherlevelof sophistication,andoveramuchlongerperiodoftimethaninmostcountriesintheworld.Whathas beendiscussedinthischapteruptothispointarethepedagogicalproblemsofsecondlanguage teachingfromthestandpointofthepractitionersintheclassroomsoftheSovietUnionthe teachers,theinspectors,thelanguagespecialists,andothereducators(Lewis,1974;MvM,March5, 3Thesepeoplehavebeentakingwidelydivergentviewsindiscussingtheroleofthe 1968:1). mothertongueinTRSL.Generally,theRussianshaveadvocatednoroleforthemothertongue,and thelocalCentralAsianshaveadvocatedagreatroleforthemothertongue.Frequently,theseviews areexpressedwithoutanylinguisticorpedagogicaljustification,eventhough,fromapedagogical pointofview,thepositiveroleofthemothertongueinchildren'scognitiveandaffectivelearningis unassailable. LanguagespecialistsataUNESCOmeetingagreedthatitwasessentialforlearnerstostart schoolingintheirmothertongueinordertominimizeboththeproblemofconceptualizationandthe breakbetweenthehomeandtheschool.Thespecialistsalsoagreedthatteachersofthesecond languageshouldknowthemothertongueofthepupilsandthatthetransfertothesecondlanguage shouldbepostponedaslongaspossible(UNESCO,1952).S.M.Makhmudova,anUzbek educator,reliesoncomparativegrammarasoneofthebestmethodsinTRSL.Inthismethod,the useofthemothertonguebecomesessential.Theeconomyembeddedincomparativegrammar makesitanattractivemethod. 437

Sincemanychildrenknowaboutsomeaspectsofthegrammaroftheirlanguagebeforecomingto school,itisnotnecessarytogivelengthydefinitionsorexplanationsofthoseaspectswhichthetwo languageshaveincommon(Makhmudova,1974). AccordingtoS.M.Makhmudova,thecontrastivelinguisticsapproach(whichbynecessityrelieson theteacher'sbilingualability)includesthecomparisonofthephoneticsandgrammatical phenomenaofRussianandthenativelanguages,andtranslationsfromRussiantothenative languageandfromthenativelanguagetoRussian.Inthisundertaking,materialscanbegrouped accordingto:(1)phenomenasimilaroridenticalinbothlanguages,whichneednotbetime consuming;(2)phenomenacharacteristicofbothlanguages,butnotidentical,whichneed explanationandclarificationbytheteacherbecauseofnativelanguageinterference;(3)phenomena particulartoRussianandabsentfromthestudent'snativelanguage,whichmakesthisarea completelynewtothelearnersandfreefrominterferencebythemothertongue.Thelearners' experiencesinlearningarerelatively(to(2)above)lessambiguous(Makhmudova,1974:620; Abdulloeva,1971:18). ThenonRussianeducatorsofCentralAsiahavealsobeentakingaleaffromtheRussianeducators' bookintheirdefenseofthemothertongueandthepedagogicalvalueassignedtoit.Theyhave turnedsomeoftheargumentsadvancedbyRussianwritersforTRSLaroundtodescribethe usefulnessofthemothertongue,notonlyasafacilitatorinTRSL,butalso,initsownmerits,as conducivetolearning(Asrori,1966).Theimportanceofthenativelanguageinthefloweringof humancultureandcivilizationismentionedoverandoverbythesenonRussianwriters. Thereare,ingeneral,twotypesofteachersofRussianinCentralAsianativeRussianspeakersand nonRussianteachers.ManyofthenativeRussianspeakersandotherRussianlanguageteachers (mostlyotherSlavs)havecomefromareasoutsideCentralAsia.ManyofthemcomefromRSFSR andsomefromtheothertwoSlavicrepublics,theUkraineandBelorussia.Inaddition,many graduatesofpedagogicalinstitutesoftheseSlavicrepublics,specializingintheteachingofRussian, spendtheirstudentteachingassignmentsintheCentralAsianrepublics.Almostallofthese expatriateRussianlanguageteacherssettleintheurbancenters,andrarelydotheyventureintothe ruralareas.Sincemorethan75percentofschoolsinCentralAsiaarelocatedintheruraldistricts, manyoftheseschoolshavenoRussianteachers(Dodoboev,1975:12;Tojieva,1968:1;MvM, November23,1971:1;Khudoidodov,1975:2;Editorial,RIILASH,No.12,1973:3). Accordingtomostobservers,theeffectivenessofbothrural(generallynonSlavic)andSlavic RussianteachersinTRSLconstitutestheAchillesheeloftheRussianlanguageprograminCentral Asia.Bothofthesegroupssuffersomedegreeofineffectiveness.Becauseoftheirignoranceofthe locallanguagesandculturesandapoorgraspoftheTRSLmethodology,theSlavicspeaking teachers 438

cannotteachproductively.Ontheotherhand,thenonRussianteachers,trainedinCentralAsian educationalinstitutions,havepoortrainingoverall(TS,April2,1968:1). Aspreviouslynoted,mostSlavicspeakingRussianteachersstayinthecitiesofCentralAsiawhere theinfrastructureisnottoodifferentfromthecitiesoftheirhomeregions.MostlocalCentralAsian graduatesofteachertraininginstitutesalsoprefertostayinurbancenters.Therefore,thescarcityof qualifiedRussianteachersintheruralareasofCentralAsiaremainsunchanged.Apparently,the establishmentintheearly1960sofbranchesofthepedagogicalinstituteswhichsupposedly specializeinthetrainingofRussianteachersfortheruralareahasnotbeenabletoreducethis shortage.Sincethesebranchesenrolledalmostexclusivelystudentsfromtheruralareas,itwas arguedthatupongraduationthesestudentswouldremainintheruraldistrictstoteachtheirown relativestheRussianlanguage.Itisnotclearhowmanyofthesegraduates,thesocalledspecial groups(GuruhoiMakhsus),choosetostayintheruralareasupongraduation.Inanycase,the qualityofthesebranchesseemstohaveremainedlow,inpartbecauseofthepoorpreparationof theirstudents(graduatesofruralelementaryandsecondaryschools)andtheteachers(Personal interviews;CAR,1965:31022).Poorlessonplansandpoorunderstandingofthesystematizationof curriculummaterialaccordingtoageofstudentsaugmentthelistofproblemsinTRSLinCentral Asia.Eachpractitionerintheclassroomandotherswhoareconcernedwiththeprogramare encouragedbyofficialstoinnovatemethodsinTRSL.Asaresult,ahodgepodgeofapproachesfor TRSLareusedintheclassroomsandpedagogicalinstitutesoftheCentralAsianrepublics. TheteachingofRussianasasecondlanguageinCentralAsia,asidefromideologicalanadpolitical contradictionsnotedearlier,ismarkedbyotherdifficultiespeculiartosecondlanguagepedagogy. First,teachingalanguageisdifferentfromteachingothersubjects.AsC.Cazdenhasobserved, "languageposesmultipleproblemsforeducationbecauseitisbothcurriculumcontentandlearning environment,boththeobjectofknowledge,andamediumthroughwhichotherknowledgeis acquired"(Cazden,1973:135).Second,theteachingofaparticularsecondlanguage,Russianinthis case,shouldnotbestandardizedforallstudents.Theirmothertonguesdiffernotonlylinguistically andintermsofconceptfromthesecondlanguagebeingtaught,butalsofromeachother's.TRSLin CentralAsiasuffersfrompoorunderstandingofbothofthesephenomena. TheproblemofcurriculumcontentforRussianteachersinnonRussianschoolsillustratesnotonly theconfusioninTRSL,butalsotheabsenceofanytheoreticalfoundations.Forexample,aprogram forthe"specialgroups"(UzbeksandTajiks)inthespecialbranchofLeninabad(Khujand) PedagogicalInstitutehadthefollowingcourses:(1)aspecialseminaronoutofclassworkonthe Russianlanguageandliterature;(2)aspecialpracticalcourseofwritingandcomposition;(3)a specialpracticalcourseonthedevelopmentofvisualaids,and(4)aspecial 439

courseofRussianandTajikliterature.ARussianlanguageweekwaseventuallyadded,during whichstudentswereapparentlytobecomeimbuedwithRussianculture(Sevost'ianova,1968:2; Karakulakov,1968:3). AprofessorfromthesameinstitutehasarguedthatknowledgeofOldChurchSlavonicis essentialinthetrainingofteachersofRussian,for"withoutitonecannotclaimtoknowthe presentRussianlanguage,andthethirtyhoursdevotedtoitintheprogramisextremely inadequate"(Rusakova,1968:3).OneprobablycannotargueagainstteachingOldChurch Slavonictofuturelinquists,butonecanquestionthewisdomofitsinclusioninthecurriculumof the"specialgroups"intheCentralAsianpedagogicalinstitutes.Theextremelypoorpreparation ofthelocalstudentsatthetimeofentrancetohighereducationalestablishments(Vuzy)of CentralAsia,andtheverypoortrainingthatthestudentsreceivewhileenrolledinthe pedagogicalinstitutes,makeitinfeasible.Onsimilarpedagogicalgrounds,onecanargueagainst theinclusionofnineteenthcenturyRussianclassicsinthe"specialgroups"curriculum (Liubana,1968:4). ThemajorlogisticalprobleminTRSLinCentralAsiahasbeenfindingqualifiedRussian teachers.Ingeneral,mostteachersofRussianarebadlytrainedbuttherearenotevenenoughof thesebadlytrainedteacherstosatisfytheneeds.Asaresult,manyschools,especiallythosein theruralareasofCentralAsia,havenoteachersatall,orhaveteachersinitiallytrainedforother subjectssuchasbiologyandphysics,whoendupteachingRussian(Birashk,1975;MvM,1971, November23:1).Furthermore,statisticsoftenquotedaboveonthepercentageofRussian teacherswithtraininginhighereducationalestablishmentshavetobeevaluatedinthelightof thepoorqualityoftraininggiventheseteachersintheVuzyofCentralAsia(Khodoidodov). AsidefromthechronicshortagesofqualifiedRussianteachers,therearechronicshortagesof goodinstructionalmaterials(amongthemtextbooks)andothersupportivefacilities(including, perhaps,socialandculturalinstitutions)forTRSLinCentralAsia.Overtheyearsveryfew bookshavebeenpublishedonTRSL,andthosethathavebeenpublishedaredeficientinterms ofmethodologyandpedagogy(Khodoidodov;Rubenshtain,1974:10714).Theproblemofpoor qualitytextbookproductionpersistseventoday.Deficienciesinthisarea,fromthepointofview ofteachersandstudents,seemtobepoorqualitypaper,verysmallprint(whichmakesreading difficult),andpoorreproductionofillustrations.Theshortageofmaterialsdesignedforoutof classreadingisespeciallyacute.Becauseofthisscarcityofreadingmaterialsandthepoor productionofthematerialsthatcanbeobtainedbythestudents,theoutofclassTRSLprogram inCentralAsia,especiallyintheruralareas,hasbeenafailure(Rubenshtain;CAR,1957,V). Interestingly,almostalltextbooksinTRSLareauthoredbynonCentralAsians,andthebest teachersintheTRSLprogramarenonCentralAsians,judgingbythenamesofteacherswho havereceived"bestRussianteacher"awards(Editorial,MvM,April6,1968:1). ThereareprobablyasmanyproposalsforteachingmethodsforTRSLinCentralAsiaasthere areteachers.ThisispartlybecausetheSovietsencourage 440

individualteacherinnovationsinteachingmethods,buttheidiosyncrasiesofparticularteachers,the compositionofthestudentbodyintermsofability,ethnicity,mothertongue,andsocialclass background,andtheurbanorrurallocationoftheschoolsarealsoimportantfactors. Ingeneral,formaleducationanditslanguageteachingcomponentintheUSSRareteacher centered.Formallanguageteaching,inparticular,requiresatransmitter(suchasateacherora machine)whichsystematicallytransmitstothelearnernewinformationaboutnewwords, sentences,andaspectsofthecultureofwhichthelanguagebeingtaughtisapart.TheTRSL teachersinCentralAsiahaveoftenbeenfaultednotonlyfortheirpoortrainingintheartofTRSL, butalsofortheirinabilitytomakelinkagesbetweenthelanguagebeingtaughtandthepolitical, economic,andideologicaldimensionsoftheSovietsocialsystem(MvM,1971:1).Apparently, policymakersbelievethatagoodteacherinTRSLisonewho,inadditiontogoodacademic qualifications,hasadesirablepoliticalandideologicalorientation(MvM,1971:1).Theempirical evidenceonteachers'politicalorientationsintheeducativeprocessoftheyoungissketchyand oftencontradictory,especiallyconcerningtheteachers'roleintheprocessofpoliticalsocialization ofchildren(Merelman,1972:34166;Prewitt,1975:10514).Butthereisnodoubtthatateacher's qualificationsandprofessionalcommitmentaresignificantinchildren'sachievement.Thisroleis probablymostobviousintheteachingofasecondlanguage,wheretheteacher'sawarenessofthe child'sstagesofcognitivedevelopmentandoftheroleofsocialclassintheprocessofacquisitionof knowledgeanditsretentionarecrucial. ThemethodologyofTRSLremainsbasicallypartisan.ThenonRussianCentralAsianeducators largelybelieveinthesuperiorityofcomparativegrammar(whichpermitsteacherstotalkaboutboth languagesandrequiresthemtobebilingual).ThenativeRussianteachersandotherSlavsinterested inthetopicinsistthatincreasinganddevelopingthestudent'svocabularyisthebestmethodof solvingthepresentTRSLproblems.Thisproposalprohibitstalkingaboutthelanguagesinvolved andhaslongbeenfavoredbytheRussians. Theearly1960switnessedactivitiesonthepartofteachersinCentralAsiafortheimplementation ofsomeofKhrushchev'sreforms,whichinTRSLwerevocabularydevelopment,sentence construction,anddevelopmentofskillsonspeechnarratives(Nazarova,1962:34).Allofthese weretotakeplacewithminimalusageofthemothertongue.Thepurposeofthisprogramwasto enableseventhandeighthgradestudentstodeveloptheirskillsinwrittenandoralRussian.The methodwasactuallythedrillingofeachwordandsentenceuntilitwasmemorizedand pronunciationwasperfected.Teacherswerealsoconcernedaboutthedevelopmentofsetsof superiorstimulioutsideandinsideschooltomotivatechildrentolearnRussian. Thismethod,however,failedtoincreasethechildren's(especiallyruralchildren's)levelof achievementinRussian,andtherateoffailureofCentralAsianchildreninRussianlanguage coursescontinuedtorise.Thisrisehasbeensomewhatbluntedbyincreasesinthelevelof investmentinTRSLinthelate1970s 441

andearly1980s.Tothedismayofmanyeducators,amongthemtheCentralAsianRussianteachers, themethodologydescribedabovestillpersists,andthereisnothinginthepartyprogramforthenear futureheraldingchange(GazetaiMuallimon,October26,1985:17).Theresultsofthe1979 census,whichagainshowedtherelativelagofCentralAsiansintheacquisitionoftheRussian language,onceagaintriggeredthediscussiononteachingmethodandcurriculumdevelopment( NarodnoeKhoziaistvoSSSRv1980a:24).ThedramaticincreaseinthenumberofUzbeksspeaking Russian(49.3percent)isincongruousandcannotbeexplainedbyavailableTRSLdata. TheCentralAsianRussianlanguageteacherscontinuetoimprovisemethods.Some,liketheone developedbyaKazakhteacher,combinedformalandnonformaleducationalactivities.Classroom instructionwassupplementedbylisteningtoradioprogramsinRussianandbroadcastingoverthe localradiostationinthatlanguage.StudentswererequiredtojointheRussianlanguageclubswhere theyreadnewspapersprintedinRussiananddiscussedthematerialwitheachother.Other gatherings,suchasstudentpartiesandexcursionsduringwhichstudentsspokeonlyRussianand gavespeechesonvarioustopics,wereencouraged.Inalloftheseactivities,theroleoftheteacher wastobethatofthefacilitatorandasomewhatpassivetransmitter(Chandirli,1972:8388).To manypeopleoutsideandinsidetheUSSR,thismethodindeedlooksinnovativeandrefreshing. Mostclasses,however,arestillconductedinthetransmitterreciprocalmethodwheretheteacheris thesolesourceofknowledgeandinformationaboutthelanguage. AnotherinnovationwastheteachingofRussianinsomeofthekindergartens(RusskiiIazykv Natsional'noiShkole,1972).ButthisprogramisnotuniformlyadministeredintheUSSR.The amountof"Russianonly"hoursperyearvariesgreatlyfromrepublictorepublic.Itisanticipated thatthenumberofhoursdevotedtotheRussianlanguageinkindergartenswillincreaseaspartof theoverallearlyeducationprogramenvisionedinthe1985EducationReform(GazetaiMuallimon, 1985:17). ItisdifficulttoassesstheresultsoftheseprogramsinearlyteachingoftheRussianlanguage.The argumentofA.K.Kanimetrov(formerMinisterofEducationofKirgizSSR),whoin1972 convincedtheUSSR'sMinistryofEducationtoaccepthisproposalfortheteachingofRussianin thekindergartens,isinterestingnotsomuchforitsappealinthe1970s(itdidnotspreadbeyonda fewrepublics),butforitsbeinginharmonywiththepresenteducationalpoliciesoftheUSSR.Then, Kanimetrovargued,"therewereabout100differentethnicgroupsintherepublicin1970and sometimes712differentnationalitiesinthesameclassroom."Theonlylanguageinstructionthat couldbecarriedout,accordingtotheformerKirgizMinister,"wasthatofRussian,becausethisis thelanguageinwhichmostparentswanttheirchildrentobetaught."Hewentontosaythat"those whostudiedRussianinkindergartenbecamethebeststudentsinlateryearsandalsowerewell adjusted"(TS,Novemer10,1972:4).Itishard 442

tofigureouthowtheMinisterwasabletoestablishthisrelationshipbetweenthelearningof Russianlanguageinkindergartenandthelaterachievementofthesechildren.The1985Education Reform,althoughstillfarfromimplementation,doeshavepersonnelandeducationalexplanations thataredifferentfromtheKirgizMinister'sapparentlyintuitiveinsights. Theseproposalsareapparentlymadewithlittleconsiderationfortheirimplementation.Whatisthe purposeofnonRussiansreadinginRussianmaterialsoriginallywritteninnonRussianlanguages? Ifthepurposeisanythingotherthanmerelyaugmentingthestudent'sstockofRussianwords,ithas neverbeenarticulatedordemonstrated.IftheproposaltoteachSovietliteratureforRussian speakingchildrenthismeansRussianliteratureandafewpiecesfromWesternsources,rarely anythingbyanonRussianwriterisimplemented,whateverisgainedinRussianvocabularyis morethanoffsetbythelossinunderstandingtheliterature,aswellasthelossofaestheticquality thatoftenaccompaniestranslations.Moreimportant,however,istheoverwhelmingevidence opposingsuchapolicyonpedagogicalgrounds(UNESCO,1952;Cazden;Cohen,1975). DependingonhowoneviewstheteachingofRussianasasecondlanguageinCentralAsia,the programhasbeeneitherafailureorasuccess.Ithasbeensuccessfulinmaking,overthepastfifty years(accordingtoSovietcensusdata),oneoutofeverythreeurbanitesandoneintenruralitesable tospeaksomeRussian.ManyofthesepeoplespeakPidginRussian. ButtheTRSLprogramhasnotbeensuccessfulifonecomparesittosimilarprogramselsewherein theUSSR.Inthiscomparison,theproportionofCentralAsianswhoarefluentinRussianfalls belowtheaverageofothernonRussianswithsimilarlevelsofcompetencyintheRussianlanguage. AlmostallofthosewhohaveacquiredsomelevelofcompetencyintheRussianlanguagearefluent intheirownmothertongues(Silver,1976).Officially,thisbilingualismisadesirableoutcomeof TRSL.However,thissentimentmaynotbesimilarlyperceivedbythosewhoseeinbilingualisma threattothedevelopmentofagenuinemonolithic"Sovietculture,"aculturethatapparentlyhasasa maincomponentonelanguagemostcertainlytheRussianlanguage.Theseattitudestoward bilingualismhaveinfluencedthemethodologiesofsecondlanguagepedagogyinCentralAsia. Asnotedearlier,thepractitionersofTRSLcanbegroupedintotwogeneralcategories:those relyingon"totalRussian"environmentmainlySlavswhichforbidsdiscussionsaboutthemother tongue,andthoserelyingoncomparativegrammarmainlyCentralAsianswhichrequirebilingual teachersandtheknowledgeoftheleamer'sculture.Atpresent,bothofthosemethodsareusedin TRSLinCentralAsia.TheperennialproblemofscarcityofqualifiedRussianteachersstillexists, butitisexpectedtobeamelioratedsomewhatoncetheEducationReformof1985isputinto practice.Thisrefomalsoseekstobreakuptheviciouscircleofincompetency,inwhichincompetent teacherstrainincompetentstudentstobecomeincompetentteachersadinfinitum. 443

NOTES 1. TransliterationkeysdetailedinE.AllwortheditionofNationalitiesoftheSovietEast: PublicationsandWritingSystems(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1971),havebeen usedfortheindigenousCentralAsianlanguages. 2. ThisisanupdatedandexpandedversionofanarticleinSlavicReview35,3(1976):44362. IamgratefultoJamsheedShorishforhishelp. 3. A.M.Dzhafarzoda,"KratkaiaLingvisticheskaiaKharakteristikaAzerbaidzhanskogo RusskogoDvuiazychiia,"RIILASHNo.4(1973):8287.ForastudyofSovieteffortsin bilingualism,seeD.E.Bartley,SovietApproachestoBilingualEducation(Philadelphia: CenterforCurriculumDevelopment). BIBLIOGRAPHY AbdullaevaM.1971."ZaboniRussiroBozBehtarOmuzem,"ZanoniTojikiston(June):18. AskarovIu.1969."ZaboniDuimiModariiMo.MaorifvMadinivat,"(MvM),December20:2. AsoriV.1966."ZabodoniFazilatiOdamist."TojikistoniSoveti,henceforth,TS,March6:4. BabaevS.1973."OProchinakhNedochetovRusskoiRechiUchashchikhsiaKarakaipakskoi Shkoly."RusskiiIazykvNatsional'noiShkole,No.1:7072. BartleyD.A.1971.SovietApproachestoBilingualEducation.Philadelphia:Centerfor CurriculumDevelopment. BashakovN.A.1967."OSovremennomSostoianiiiDal'neishemSovershestovovaniiAlfabita DliaTiurkikhIazykovNarodovSSSR."VoprosyIazykkoznaniia,No.5:3346. BesemeresJ.F.1975."PopulationPoliticsintheUSSR."SovietUnion2,Nos.1&2. BirashkA.1975."DidariazShuravivaSukhaniChanddarBara'iAmuzishvaParvarishi Shuravi."PavamiNavin.2 BoitsovaA.F.,andL.A.Varkovitskaia.1952."PochemuNeobkhedimPredvaritel'nyiUstnyi KursRusskogoIazyka."RusskiiIazykvShkole,No.3:6669. CarrreH.d'Encausse1980.DeclineofanEmpire.NewYork:NewsweekBooks. CazdenC.1973."ProblemsforEducation:LanguageasCurriculumContentandLearning Environment."Daedlus102,3:135. CentralAsianReview(CAR).1953."Tadzhikistan."Vol.1,No.1:4344.1957.Vol.5,No.1:38 40.1954.Vol.2,no.2:18789.1961."OrganizationofEducation,"Vol.9,No.1:27,1965.Vol. 13,No.4:31022. ChandirliS.M.1972."NashaPochta."RusskiiIazykiLiteraturavAzerbaidzhanskoiShkole (RIILASH),No.1:8388. CohenA.D.1975.ASociolinguisticApproachtoBilingualEducation:ExperimentinAmerican

Southwest.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. DmitrievaI.M.,ed.1974.VoprosyMetodikiPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazykavUzbekskoi Shkole:SbornikStatei.Tashkent:"Uchitel'." DodoboevR.1975."Vaz'iyatiTa'limiZaboniRusivaTadbirhoiBehterKardaniOn."MvM,April 5:12. 444

DzhafarzodaA.M.1973."KratkaiLingvisticheskaiaKharakteristikaAzerbaudzhanskogoRusskogo Dvuiazychiia."RIILASH,No.4:8287. GazetaiMuallimon.1985."ProgrammaiPartiiaiKommunistiiIttifogiSoveti."October26:17. GhanievGh.1971."Ba'ziMas'alahoiTa'limiZaboniRusi."TS.January26:4,June25:2. GibbH.A.R.1970.TheArabConquestsinCentralAsia.London:JamesG.ForlongFund. IoshonjonovA.,M.Shukurov,andM.Rahmanov.1964.MetodikaiTa'limiZaboniTojikidar MaktabiIbtedoi.Dushanbe:Irfon4247. Kanimetrov.A.K.1972."ZaboniRusiZaboniManZaboniMo."TS,November10:4. KarakulakovV.V.1968."DarBara'iTayyoriKardaniMuallim."MvM,March5:3. KatzZ.,R.Rogers,andF.Harned.1975.HandbookofMajorSovietNationalities.NewYork:Free Press. KazakhstanskaiaPravda.1956.March27,quotedinCAR,1957,Vol.5,No.1:39. KhodoidodovB.1975."Ba'zeMas'alahoiTa'limiZabonvaAdabiyotiRusDarMaktabhoiTojiki." MvM,March20:2. KingBeatrice.1936.ChangingMan:TheEducationandSystemoftheU.S.S.R.London:Victor Gollancz,Ltd. KissenI.A.1952."ORazgovornykhUrokakhBezCheteniiaiPis'ma."RusskiiIazykvShkole,No. 3:6162. KliuevaV.N.1952."UstnyiKursvProgramakhpoRusskomuIazykuDliaNerusskikhShkol." RusskiiIazykvShkole,No.2:77. KolaskyJ.1968.LanguagePolicy:EducationinSovietUkraine.Toronto:PeterMartin,26. KommunistTadzhikistana.1956.April5. KomsomoliTojikiston.1973.February7:4,1974,January20:4. LeninV.I.1968.QuotedinO.Shukurov."ZaboniLenini."MvM,March5:2. LewisE.G.1972.MultilingualismintheSovietUnion.TheHague:Mouton,p.181. .1974.LinguisticsandSecondLanguagePedagogy:ATheoreticalStudy.TheHague:Mouton, p.58. LiubanaB.S.1968."MashghuliuyotiAmali."MvM,March5:4. Makhmudov.A.R.1973."TverdyeiMilagkieSoglasnyeRusskogoIazyka."RIILASH,No.11:4956. MakhmudovaS.M.1974."IzOpytIspol'zovaniiapriIzucheniiRusskogoGlagolavUzbekshoi Shkole."InVoprosyMetodikiPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazykavUzbekskoiShkoleiSbornikStatei, ed.I.M.Dmitrieva,pp.620. Mal'tsevaK.V.1975."ProblemhoiMuhimmiTa'limiZaboniRus."MvM,April5:2;June7:4; February16:4;August2:4. MaorifvaMadaniyat,MvM.1968.March10:4;March30:3;April6:1.1970.May19:4.1971. November23:1.1974.September10:4.1975.February16:4;June7:4;August2:4. Ma'rufovaS.1968."RohohiTakmiliTal'im."MvM,August20:2. MedlinW.K.,W.Cave,andF.Carpenter.1971.EducationandDevelopmentinCentralAsia:A CaseStudyonSocialChangeinUzbekistan.Leiden:E.J.Brill,105.

MerelmanR.M.1972."TheAdolescenceofPoliticalSocialization."SociologyofEducation 45:13466. 445

.1975."SocialStratificationandPoliticalSocializationinMatureIndustrialSocieties." ComparativeEducationReview19,1:13jj30. MokhovA.1952."ORazgovernykhUrokakh."RusskiilazykvShkole,No.3:6364. MurtazoevB.1984."PaivandiMaktabvaHayot."AdabiyotvaSan'at,February23:45. NazarovaM.A.1962.RazvitieRichiUchashchiskhsiavSviazisIzucheniemRusskogo Sintaksiasav78KlassakhTurkmenskoiShkoly.Ashkabad:Turkmenskkoigosudarstvennoe UchenoPedagogicheskoeIzdatel'stvo,34. NiyozmohammedovB.1970.Zabonshinositojik.Dushanbe:Donish. PiatinaN.A.1974."RabotanadOshibkaminaUrokakhRusskogoIazykavIIIVKlassakh UzbekskoiShkoly."InVoprosyMetodikiPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazykavUzbekskoiShkole: SbornikStatei,ed.I.M.Dmitrieva,3339. PierceR.1960.RussianCentralAsia,18671917.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. PoolJ.1976."DevelopingtheSovietTurkicTongues:TheLanguageofthePoliticsofLanguage." SlavicReview35,3:42542. PopovaG.I.1973."RabotanadOrtografieivProtsesseUsvoeniiaObshcheiLeksikiDlia RusskogoiAzerbaidzhanskogoIazykov."RIILASH,No.2:26. PrewittK.1975."SomeDoubtsAboutPoliticalSocializationResearch."ComparativeEducation Review19,1:10514. RadzhabovaT.M.1973."NekotoryeVoprosyPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazykavNachal'nykh KlassakhAzerbaidzhanskikhShkol."RIILASH,No.2:311. RahbariDonish.1930.AugustSeptember:13,Arabicscript. Rashidov.S.1975."ZaboniRusiZaboniRobitavaHamkoriMillithovaKhelghoiIttifoqiSoveti." MvM,November27:13. RubenshtainF.L.1974."IzOpytaPrimeneniiaDiafil'movnaUrokakhRusskogoIazykai LiteraturyvVIKlasseUzbekskoiShkoly."InVoprosyMetodikiPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazyka vUzbekskoiShkole:SbornikStatei,ed.I.M.Dmitrieva,10714. RusakovaB.M.1968."GrammatikaiTa'rikhiZaboniRusi."MvM,March5:3. RusskiiIazykiLiteraturavAzerbaidzhanskoiShkole.1973.No.8:5,No.12:3. RusskiiIazykiLiteraturavNatsional'noiShkole.1972.No.1:7779. Sevost'ianovaT.E.1968."KhonishiIfodanokKalidiKomiyobiho."MvM,March5:2 SharikovaL.Z.1971."KVoprosyIzucheniiaKatergoriiVidaTiurkoizzychnoiShkole."Voprosy

TeoriiiMetodiIzycheniiaRusskogoIazyka(glagoi).Kazan:MinisterstvoProveshcheniiaRSFSR KazanskiiGosudarstvennyiPedagogicheskiiInstitut:326. ShneidmanN.N.1973.LiteratureandIdeologyinSovietEducation.Toronto:D.C.Heath. ShorishM.M.1981."DissentoftheMuslims:SovietCentralAsiainthe1980s."Nationalities Papers19,2:18494. .1984."PlanningbyDecree:TheSovietLanguagePolicyinCentralAsia".Language ProblemsandLanguagePlanning8,1:3549. ShukurovM.R.1957.RevlutsivaimadanidarTojikiston.Stalinabad:Irfon. ShukurovO.Sh.1968."ZaboniLenini."MvM,March5:2. SilverB.1976."BilingualismandMaintenanceoftheMotherTongueinSovietCentralAsia." SlavicReview35,3:40624. SovetskaiaKirgizia.1956.April18. 446

TarzimanovF.V.1952."ORazgovemykhUrokakhvPervomKlasseNerusskoiShkole."Russkii IazykvShkole,No.3:6566. TojievaB.1968."Ta'limiZaboniRusidarTojikiston."MvM,January16:1. TojikistoniSoveti(TS).1968,April2:1.1972,November10:4.1975,August3:4;August5:4; November7:4;November18:4. Tsentral'noeStatisticheskoeUpravlenepriSoveteMinistrovSSSR.1981.NarodnoeKhoziaistvo SSSRv1980Godu.Moscow:FinansyiStatistika. UNESCO.1952.ReportoftheMissiontoAfghanistan.Paris:UNESCO. .1968."TheUseofVernacularLanguagesinEducation:TheReportoftheUNESCOMeeting ofSpecialists."ReadingsintheSociologyofLanguage,ed.J.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton. UspenskaiaL.V.1975."RoliZaboniModaridarOmuzishiZaboniRusi."MvM,April5:2. UzbekSSR,NarodnoeKomissariatProsveshcheniia.1939.InstruktsiiaoProvedeniiSoveshcheniia UchiteleivAvgusta1939.Tashkent:Izdat.Narkompros:1316. ValitovA.M.1952."NasushchnyeZadachiPervonachel'nogoObucheniiaRusskomuIazykuv Natsional'noiShkole."RusskiiIazykvShkole,No.2:67. WimbushS.E.,andA.Alexiev.1980.TheEthnicFactorsintheSovietArmedForces:Preliminary Findings.SantaMonica,Calif.:RandCorp. YusofbekovR.1974."TalabotiZamonvaTadbirhoiMinba'dBehtarNamudaniTa'limiZabonva AdabiyotiTojik."MvM,January10:23j. ZakharovaE.V.1974."TvorcheskiiDiktantvShkolesTadzhikskimIazykomObucheniia."In VoprosyMetodikiPrepodavaniiaRusskogoIazykavUzbekskoiShkole:SbornikStatei,ed.I.M. Dmitrieva,4748. ZhuravleyaA.1968."RoliZabonvaAdabiyotiRusdarTarbiaiKommunistiiKhonandagon."MvM, June4:4. 447

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 448

23MiguelSiguan BILINGUALEDUCATIONINSPAIN AMULTILINGUALCOUNTRY Spanish,orCastilian,istheofficiallanguageofSpainandthemothertongueofthemajorityofits inhabitants.Itisalsothelanguagethroughwhichthepoliticalandadministrativeunityofthe Spanishnationhasbeenestablished.Nevertheless,otherlanguagesinSpanishterritorycontinueto bethemothertongueofaconsiderableportionofthepopulation.Althoughofficialdataarelacking, theapproximatefiguresgivenbelowsuggesttheimportanceoftheselanguages. InCatalonia(population6million),aregionlocatedinthenortheasternpartoftheIberian Peninsula,thelanguagespokenisCatalan,alanguagederivedfromLatinasareSpanish,French, andItalian.FiftypercentofthepopulationofCataloniahaveitastheirmothertongue,andanother 30percentspeakoratleastunderstandit.AvarietyofCatalan,sometimescalledValencian,is spokeninValencia,locatedsouthofCataloniaontheMediterraneancoast;otherlocalvarietiesare spokeninValenica,locatedsouthofCataloniaontheMediterraneancoast;otherlocalvarietiesare spokenintheBalearicIslands(populationfivehundredthousand).Inbothcases,between50and70 percentofthepopulationcanbeconsideredtospeakCatalanastheirnativelanguage,althoughitis usuallyrestrictedtopurelyfamilyuse.Galician,anotherRomancelanguage,similartoPortuguese, isspokeninGalicia(population3million),inthenorthwesternpartofthepeninsula.Galicianis spokenorunderstoodby80percentofthepopulation,althoughitisusedinpredominantlyruraland familysettings.Lastly,Basque(orEuskera)isspokenintheBasqueprovinces(Euskadi).Itis perhaps TranslatedfromSpanishbyLeePuigAntich. 449

theoldestEuropeanlanguagespokentodayandhasnoknownrelationshiptoanyofthem. Twentyfivepercentofthe2millioninhabitantsoftheSpanishBasqueprovincescurrentlyspeak Basque,asdo10percentofthepopulationinneighboringNavarre(populationfourhundredand fiftythousand). SincethereestablishmentofademocraticgovernmentinSpain,thislinguisticpluralismhasbeen reflectedinaneducationalsystemthattakesthevariousminoritylanguagesintoconsideration andthatcanbecharacterizedasextremelyliberalandprogressive.Thissystemisdescribedin thischapter,butfirstsomeinformationonthehistoricalbackgroundandsociocultural componentsofthesituationwillbepresented. HISTORICALROOTSANDTHECONTEMPORARYSITUATION TheoccupationoftheIberianPeninsulabytheRomansatthebeginningofourera(second centuryB.C.)resultedinthesubstitutionofLatinfortheindigenouslanguages,exceptinthe westernpartofthePyrenees,whereBasque,anancientlanguageofunknownorigin,continued tobespoken.Centurieslater,thedisintegrationandtransformationofLatinintotheRomance languagescoincidedwiththeinvasionofthepeninsulabytheArabs(tenthcentury).The Christianswereleftincontrolofonlyanarrow,mountainousstriponthenortherncoastofthe peninsula,fromwheretheylaunchedtheReconquest,protractedoverthenextfivecenturies.In thismountainousstrip,severallanguagesdescendedfromLatinwerecrystallizedandultimately reducedtothree:Galicianinthewest;Castilianinthecentralarea;andCatalanintheeast.The developmentandlaterexpansionofthesethreelanguagesweredeterminedbythepolitical fortunesofthegroupsofpeoplewhospokethemandbythesuccessofthosepeopleinthe struggletoreclaimterritoryfromtheArabs. Inthethirteenthcentury,thelinguisticmapoftheIberianPeninsulawasalreadydefinitively fixed.TheBasqueenclavedidnotconstituteapoliticalentity,andeventhoughBasquewas maintained,itdidnotexpand.CataloniaconqueredValenciaandtheBalearicIslands,and planteditslanguagethere.Galiciadidnotsucceedinestablishingpoliticalpower,butasaresult ofdemographicpressure,itslanguageexpandedsouthwardtowhatisnowPortugal.The Castiliannucleus,situatedinthecentralpartofthepeninsula,advancedsteadilytowardthe south,spreadingthroughoutthesouthernhalfofthepeninsula. Fromthetwelfthtothefourteenthcenturies,thethreelanguagesexperiencedliterary development.Galicianwaslargelylimitedtolyricpoetryinthetwelfthcentury;however,during thethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies,bothCatalanandCastilianinspiredliterarymovementsof extremelyhighquality,whichwereamongthemostoutstandinginEurope. Inthefourteenthcentury,theequilibriumbetweenCatalanandCastilianwasbroken.The KingdomofAragon,whichincludedCatalonia,Valencia,andtheBalearicIslands,wasunited withtheKingdomofCastile.Althoughitsautonomy 450

wasrespected,Aragonlostitspoliticalinitiative.ThediscoveryofAmericaandtheimperialefforts ofCharlesIandPhillipIIassuredtheascendancyofCastilian.Catalonianliteratureconsequently enteredintoadecline,andtheofficialuseofCatalanwaned. Intheeighteenthcentury,withtheestablishmentoftheBourbonkingsontheSpanishthrone,the Frenchmodelofastronglycentralized,linguisticallyunifiedstatewasadopted.Languagesother thanCastilianwereactivelyrepressed;theirusedeclinedandwasprogressivelyrestrictedtofamily andruralsettings.Inthemidnineteenthcentury,however,theRomanticmovementburstforthwith aglorificationofancientculturesandnationalities.Themovementwasstronglyfeltinregionsthat hadpreservedtheirindigenouslanguages,buteachareaexhibiteddistinctcharacteristicsdepending onitshistoryand,inparticular,itssocioeconomicsituation. InCatalonia,therevivalofCatalanasaliterarylanguageoccurredsimultaneouslywithasubstantial economicandindustrialdevelopmentwhichtransformedCataloniaintothemostadvancedregionin Spain.Themiddleclasssupportingthisdevelopmentpromotedpoliticalcatalanismoasawayof safeguardingthisprogressagainstthecentralgovernment.Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury, Cataloniaacquiredafewyearsofpoliticalautonomy.Someyearslater,withtheadventofthe Republic,theexperimentwasrepeated,orientedthistimefromtheLeft.Inthemeantime,avery importantliteraryandculturalrenaissancetookplace,andthelanguagewasmodernized(grammar, orthography,lexicon). IntheremainingCatalanterritories(ValenciaandtheBalearics),whichunderwentneither industrialdevelopmentnorthearousalofpoliticalconsciousness,thelinguisticandcultural movementproducedotherkindsofeffects,asitalsodidoutsidetheSpanishbordersinFrench Catalonia(incorporatedintoFranceintheeighteenthcentury)andintheOccitanspeakingareasof southernFrance. AsinCatalonia,considerableindustrialdevelopmentalsooccurredintheBasqueprovinces,butthe middleclassthatemergedidentifieditselfonlyslightlywithBasquenationalism.Becausebotha literarytraditionandculturalinstitutionswerelacking,theliteraryandculturalrebirthwasweak. Thus,despitethenationalismwhichhasbeenactivesincethebeginningofthiscenturyandthe politicalautonomyachievedduringtheRepublicanera,thereislittlehopethatBasquewillagain becomethefirstlanguageofthemajorityofthepopulation. Finally,inGaliciatherewasneitherindustrialnoreconomicdevelopment;hence,Galiciacontinues tobeapoorregionwhosepopulationisforcedtoemigrateinlargenumbers.TherebirthofGalician wasexclusivelyliterary;itdidnotgainpoliticalstrength,andithasremainedapurelyrural language. TheregimeofGeneralFranciscoFranco,establishedattheendoftheSpanishCivilWar(1939), exaltednationalunity,andnotonlyeliminatedtheautonomousregionsbutalsosuppressedtheuse oflanguagesotherthanSpanish.Althoughdefiniteprogresswasmadeinthisrespectgoingfrom actualpersecutioninthefirstyearstobroadtoleranceinthelasttheglorificationofSpanishunity 451

continued,togetherwithdistrustofthosewhodefendedlinguisticandnationalpluralism.Thelatter were,ofcourse,alwaysfoundamongthemostactiveelementsofantiFrancoopposition. WiththeestablishmentofthedemocraticgovernmentafterthedeathofGeneralFranco,this situationchangedcompletely.ThenewSpanishConstitution(1978)affirmsthatCastilianor Spanishistheofficiallanguageofthecountry,butthatthelargenumberoflanguagesexistingon Spanishsoilisacommongoodthatmustbepreservedandencouraged. Atthesametime,theSpanishnationwasorganizedintoagroupofautonomousregions,eachwith arelativelybroadstatuteofautonomy,providingforaparliamentandagovernment,andinthe autonomousregionswithalocallanguage,forthepossibilityofthatlanguageattainingofficial statusalongwiththenationalofficiallanguage,Spanish.Sincetheautonomousregionsadminister theeducationalsystem,thestatuteofautonomymakesprovisionforthelocallanguagetooccupyan importantplaceineducationalso. Evenbeforethestatutesofautonomywentintoeffect,theSpanishMinistryofEducationenacted theDecreeonBilingualism(1979),whichestablishedthatintheareaswiththeirownlanguage,all levelsandgradesofBasicGeneralEducation[EnseanzaGeneralBasica]agessixtofourteen shouldincludeatleastthreehoursofinstructioninthislanguageperweekandthatthisminimum couldbeincreasedinschoolsthatrequestedit.Throughoutthetransitionalstage,fromtheadoption oftheConstitution(1978)totheimplementationofthestatutesofautonomy,theDecreeon Bilingualismwasthepivotaroundwhichallthelinguisticchangesintheeducationalsystem revolved.Afterwards(1981),whenthestatutesofautonomyhadalreadybeenputintoeffectandthe regionalgovernmentshadthereforetakenoverresponsibilityfortheeducationalsystemintheir respectiveareas,theMinistryofEducationissuedsomerecommendationsonthesubject,which,in thesectionofinteresthere,readsasfollows: Ashasalreadybeenstated,intheterritorieswiththeirownlanguages,theobjective proposedbytheschoolsystemmustbethatthepupilspossessafullcommandofboth languagesuponcompletionofthecompulsoryprogramofeducation.Thismeansthat theymustbeabletousethelanguagescorrectlyandeffectivelyinanysituationandfor anypurpose.Toattainsuchanobjective,thefollowingmeasuresarenecessary: 1. Theprogramatalllevelsmustincludeinstructioninbothlanguagestotheextentneededto ensuresuccess. 2. Eachlanguagemust,inaddition,beusedasamediumofinstructionintheschoolcurriculum. Thetimestartingandthedegreetowhicheachlanguageisusedasalanguageofinstruction mustbedeterminedineachcaseaccordingtoasetoffactorsbearinguponbothlearningand linguisticknowledge,forexample,theextenttowhicheachlanguageisusedinthesurrounding environment.Thediversityofthesefactorsallowsforconsiderableflexibilityinthisregard, providedthattheultimateobjectiveoffullcommandofbothlanguagesismaintained. 452

3 If,asaresult . ofthis flexibility,an areashould contain schoolswith different linguistic models,then CATALONIA parentsshall beableto chooseamong SomeofthecharacteristicsthatmakeCatalanauniqueandprivilegedcase withinthepanoramaofEuropeanminoritylanguageshavealreadybeen theminsofar indicated.Catalanisalanguagethatissupportedbyanoldandsignificant aspossible. literaryandacademictradition.Itiscompletelystandardized,withasystemof 4 Inprinciple, lexical,grammatical,andorthographicnormsacceptedwithoutquestion,andit . education cancurrentlyrelyonstrongpoliticalbackingtoensureitsofficialuse,aswellas shallbe onbroadpopularsupport.However,thisextremelyfavorablesituationis initiatedinthe circumscribedbythesimultaneousexistenceofSpanishandthegreaterinfluence pupil'smother tongue,with oftheSpanishlanguage.ThisoccursnotonlybecauseSpanishistheofficial statelanguage,and,hence,thelanguageofgreatestpoliticalandeconomic instructionin power,butalsobecausethenumberofSpanishspeakersbothwithinandoutside theother SpainismuchgreaterthanthenumberofCatalanspeakers. language being InspiteoftheeffortsoftheautonomousgovernmentofCataloniatofoster introduced Catalanculturethroughthemassmedia,thevolumeofwrittenandaudiovisual subsequently. materialsproducedandconsumedinCatalonia(books,magazines,newspapers, However, radioandtelevisionprograms,films)ismuchgreaterinSpanishthaninCatalan. where feasible,and Thereisyetanotherfactor.Asaresultofitsindustrialandeconomic subjectto development,Cataloniahasattractedimmigrantsfromotherregions,especially parental fromthesouthofSpain,insuchnumbersthattodaynearlyhalfofitspopulation approval,the wasbornoutsideCatalonia.Thegreatmajorityoftheseimmigrantsare,of mothertongue course,Spanishspeaking. canbeusedto introducethe Itiswellknownthatwhenapoliticallyandsociallystronglanguageexists otherlanguage alongsideofaminorityand,hence,weakerlanguageinthesameregion,a fromthe beginningof 453 schooling.In suchanevent, pupilswill,in alllikelihood, beacquainted withboth languagesby thesecond yearofBasic General

Education. 5 Theattention . giventothe mothertongue doesnotimply the establishment ofadual educational systembased onthe linguistic originsofthe pupils.Any primary schoolmust bepreparedto admitchildren irrespectiveof theirmother tongue. 6 Bilingual . education mustnot neglectthe factthat duringtheir schooling, pupilsalso needto acquirea foreign language,as requiredby law. 7 Itisnecessary . tocarryout research projectswhich willpermit objective evaluationof different teachingand organizational approachesfor attaining masteryof both

languages. Suchstudies mustreflect thedifferences arisingfrom reallife situations. 8 Inareaswhere . thelanguage spokenbythe indigenous populationis differentfrom thatofthe autonomous communityto whichit belongs, democratic principle demandsthat theultimate goal bilingualism notbe forgotten,and thattoachieve thisgoal,itis necessaryto proceedwith tactand flexibility duringthe courseofboth shortand longterm planning.

languagehierarchyknownasdiglossiaisusuallyproduced.InCatalonia,however,thesocial stratificationofthetwolanguagesisunique.InrelationtoSpanish,Catalanisaminoritylanguage, henceweaker,andinasubordinateposition.Butatthesametime,itisthelanguageofalargepart oftheeconomicandintellectualmiddleclass,aswellasthelanguageoflocalpoliticalpower. Spanish,ontheotherhand,isthelanguageofimmigrantsandthelowerstrataofthepopulation. Thatis,evenifSpanishis,inprinciple,thestrongerlanguage,fromcertainperspectivesitisalsothe lessprestigious.Thissituationmightbecharacterizedasdoubleorcrossdiglossia.However,the factthatthepeopleofCataloniaspeakdifferentmothertongueshasnotseparatedthetwo communitiesalonglinguisticlines.Despitetheextraordinarychangesthathaveoccurredinrecent yearsinthestatusofthetwolanguages,Catalonianshaveremainedunited,andthechangeshave beenassimilatedpracticallyeffortlessly.SincetheGeneralitat(AutonomousGovernment)of Catalonia(193136)tookovertheadministrationoftheeducationsystem,ithaspubliclyaffirmed thatitsexpressobjectiveisthatallpupilswillhavemasteredbothlanguagesandwillbeabletouse themeffectivelybytheendofbasicschooling.Thegovernmentacknowledgesthatthisobjective canbeattainedthroughschoolmodelsthatdifferwithrespecttothepresenceofeachlanguagein theinstructionalprogram.Ontheotherhand,ithasrefusedtoallowdifferentschoolmodelstobe establishedonthebasisofpupils'linguisticorigins.Thatis,ithasnotpermittedtheestablishment ofdifferentschoolsforchildrenwhosemothertongueisCatalanandthosewhosemothertongueis Spanish.AnyeducationalinstitutioninCataloniamustbeabletoacceptchildrenfromeither languagebackground.Whenthedominantschoollanguageisdifferentfromthenewpupils'mother tongue,theschoolmustinitiallyteachthechildrenintheirnativelanguageandintroducethemonly graduallytothesecondone.Asfarasattainmentoftheobjectivesisconcerned,untilthechangein regime,instructionhadbeengivenexclusivelyinSpanish.Hence,theeffortsoftheGeneralitat sinceassumingresponsibilityhavebeendirectedtowardthefollowinggoals: 1. ToensurethattheminimumrequirementforCatalan(threetofivehoursaweek)isfulfilledat alllevelsofinstructioninallschools.Subsequently,thisrequirementwasbroadenedtomean notonlytheteachingoftheCatalanlanguage,butalsotheinstruction,inCatalan,ofsomeof theschoolsubjects. 2. Toassistthoseeducationalestablishmentsthatwanttosetuptheinstructionalprogrampartly orprimarilyinCatalan,offeringthemnotonlytheadministrativemeanstodoso,butalso otherkindsofencouragement.TheCataloniangovernmenthasalsofosteredtheproductionof teachingmaterialsinCatalan,whichinturnhasstimulatedthecarryingoutofpedagogical experiments,etc. Despitesomeimportanthistoricalprecedentsforinstructionin,andof,Catalan,theprocessof changeinitiatedbythegovernmenthasencounterednu 454

merousobstacles.Thefirstandmostseriousobstacleasisusuallythecasewhenachangeinthe linguisticbasisofeducationisattemptedhasbeenwiththeteachingpersonnel.Forvarious reasons,thenumberofteachersbornoutsideCataloniaandwhothereforedidnotknowCatalan eitheratalloronlysuperficiallywasveryhigh.EventhoseborninCataloniawhocouldspeak Catalanhadinsufficientknowledgeandnoexperienceinteachingit.Inordertoaugment knowledgeofthelanguageandadaptittoinstructionalneeds,theinstitutesofeducational scienceofthethreeCatalonianuniversitiesinauguratedaprogramofCatalancoursesfor teacherswhowerealreadyemployed,whichby1983hadreachedmorethanfifteenthousand trainees.Theproblemhasbeensteadilydeclining,especiallywithrespecttothefuture.Thisis becauseitisnownecessarytodemonstratesomeknowledgeofCatalaninordertoenrollin primaryandsecondaryteachingprograms.Furthermore,theseventeachers'colleges(Escuelas deFormacondelProfesonado)forBasicGeneralEducationoffertheirstudentsanadequate knowledgeofCatalan,andsomeofthemevenuseCatalanastheinstructionallanguageinthe majorityofcourses. Amajordifficultyatthetimeofimplementingthenewlanguagepolicywastheextraordinary varietyinthelinguisticbackgroundofthepupilsandtheirfamilies,since,ingeneral,theschool populationofCataloniaisdistributedequallybetweenCatalanspeakingandSpanishspeaking children.Thisproportionvariesgreatlyaccordingtolocationfromareasandschoolswhere Catalanspeakersarecompletelypredominant,toplacesdominatedbySpanishspeakers.This demandstheuseofquitediverseteachingapproaches,and,consequently,thesameschool programcanproducedifferentlinguisticresultsaccordingtothelocationoftheschool. Finally,inordertoexplainthechangesineducationalorganizationwhichhavetakenplaceto date,itisnecessarytorecallthatinCatalonia,asinthewholeofSpain,twotypesofschools exist:publicschools,supportedandadministeredbythegovernment(inthiscasebythe governmentofCatalonia),inwhichtheteachersaregovernmentemployeesandtheprograms establishedbytheeducationalauthoritiesarestrictlyadheredto;andprivateschools,supported byparents,butsubsidizedwithpublicfunds,inwhichbroadadministrativeautonomyis maintaineddespitebeingsubjecttoinspectionbyeducationalauthorities.Asaresult,linguistic practicesvarymoreinprivateschoolsthaninpublicshools.Itwastheprivateschoolswhich, evenbeforetheadventofthedemocraticgovernment,introducedtheCatalanizationof instructionandwhichremainintheforefrontofthisprocesstoday.Conversely,someprivate schoolsaresolidlyfoundedontheSpanishlanguagebytheexpressdesiresoftheirsupporters.In publicschools,ontheotherhand,agreaterfidelitytoprevailinggovernmentaldirectives understandablyoccurs. TypesofEducationalInstitutionsAccordingtoLanguages Asaconsequenceofthecurrentpolicy,teachingestablishmentsmaybeclassifiedintothree maintypesormodelsaccordingtolanguageofinstruction: 455

 Atypologyofbilingualschoolsmustreflectnotonlythelanguageofinstructionbut alsotheinternalandexternallanguageofcommunicationusedbytheschool,the culturalimplicationsoftheschool'slinguisticpractices,andthehabitualandfamily languageofthepupils.ButatleastasfarasCataloniaisconcerned,classificationby languageofinstructionhighlightsthefundamentaldifferences,whiletheremaining featuresfulfillacomplementaryrole. SchoolswithInstructionMainlyinCatalan.Intheseschools,Catalanisthe mediumofinstructionformostoralloftheschoolsubjects,withthesoleexception ofcoursesinSpanishlanguageandliterature.Inthemajorityoftheseschools,both internalandexternalcommunicationalsotakesplaceprimarilyinCatalan,andmany activitiesattempttointegratethepupilsintospecificallyCataloniantraditionsand culture. Publicschoolsofthistypearetypicallyfoundinruralareaswherea Catalanspeakingstudentbodypredominates,whileprivateschoolstendtobefound inurbanareas,wheretheyattractCatalanspeakingfamilieseagertopromotetheir language.Nevertheless,all"Catalan"schoolshaveasmallpercentageofpupils whosefamilylanguageisSpanish.Thistypeofschoolalsoexistsinareaswhere Spanishspeakingpupilspredominate,althoughsuchschoolsarefewandsomewhat experimental. Althoughnoofficialdataareavailable,itisestimatedthatasofthe198384 academicyearschoolsofthistypeadmittedbetween20and25percentoftheschool populationinCatalonia. SchoolswithInstructionMainlyinSpanish.Theseschoolsremainfaithfultothe traditionallinguisticmodelofinstructioninSpanish,eventhough,asrequiredby currentlaw,theyoffertheminimumamountofinstructionofandinCatalan(atleast fivehoursweeklyinallgrades).AsignificantnumberofCatalanspeakingpupils attendtheseschools.SincemostoftheschoolshavemoreSpanishspeakers, however,Spanishbecomestheinterstudentlanguageofcommunication.With respecttotheschools'internalandexternalcommunication,bothlanguages,or mainlySpanish,areused.Itisestimatedthatschoolsofthistypecurrentlyadmit between50and60percentoftheschoolpopulationofCatalonia. SchoolswithInstructioninBothLanguages.Thiscategoryincludesschools whoselanguageprogramsliesomewherebetweenthetwoprevioustypesbutwhich neverthelessdifferconsiderablyamongthemselves.Theycomprise:(1)schools whoseobjectiveistofurnisharealbilingualeducation,withtheinitialschooling differentiatedaccordingtothefamilylanguageofthepupils,andtheschoolsubjects subsequentlydividedbetweenthetwolanguages;(2)schoolsbasicallysimilarto Type2,withinstructionmainlyinSpanish,butwhichcon 456

1 Schools . with instruction mainlyin Catalan (Catalan schools). 2 Schools . with instruction mainlyin Spanish. 3 Schools . with instruction inboth languages invarying degrees.

sidertheminimumlegalrequirementforCatalantobeinsufficientandthereforegiveitalarger placeinthecurriculumandinculturalandextracurricularactivities;(3)schoolsthataregradually becoming"Catalan"schoolsbuthavenotyetfinishedthisprocess;and(4)schoolsthathavenot arrivedataconsensusconcerninglanguagepolicy,sothatthepresenceofthetwolanguages reflectsacompromiseorsimplyalackofagreement.Althoughtheseschoolsspringfromdiverse motives,theintermediatecharacterofthislinguisticpracticemoreCatalanthaninType2butless thaninType1correspondstothemiddlepositionalsooccupiedbyCatalanintheadministrative andextracurricularactivitiesoftheseschools.Likewise,pupilsattendingthemarerecruitedfrom bothCatalanspeakingandSpanishspeakingfamilies.Itisestimatedthatschoolsofthistypeadmit between20and25percentoftheschoolpopulation. AfterBasicGeneralEducation Theperiodofcommoninstructionforthewholepopulationendsatagefourteen.Fromthenon, pupilscanchoosebetweenvocationalandacademicprograms,thelatterofwhichleadtothe university.Theschoolsofferingtheseprogramscouldbedescribedingeneralasfollowingthesame guidelinesandcorrespondingtothesametypesindicatedaboveforbasiceducation,although Catalanoccupiesagreaterplaceintheacademicprogramthaninthevocational. Inbothprograms,however,teachersfrequentlyfeelfreetousethelanguagethattheypreferorthe languageinwhichtheybestexpressthemselves,itbeingassumedthattheirstudents,afterhaving finishedbasiceducation,arecapableofusingbothlanguages.Attheuniversitylevel,this assumptionbecomesthegeneralrule. SincetheestablishmentofautonomyinCatalonia,thethreeuniversitieslocatedtherehavedeclared theirsupportforCatalancultureandconsiderCatalanthefirstoftheirofficiallanguageswithina legalframeworkthatpermitstheexistenceofboth.Theuniversityassumesthatallitsmembers understandbothlanguages,evenifnoteveryonecanspeakthem,andthatallmembersofthe universityhavetherighttouseeitherlanguageinanygivencircumstance.Asaresultofthispolicy, itisestimatedthatalmosthalftheuniversitycoursesarenowgiveninCatalanandnearlyathirdof thedoctoralthesesandotherscientificpapersarewritteninthatlanguage.Administrative documentsandinformationareusuallyproducedinCatalanbutmayalsoappearintheother language.Atanyformalorinformaluniversitygathering,participantsspeakthelanguagethatthey prefer,thatis,theonetheynormallyuse,ontheassumptionthattheotherpeoplepresentcan understandthem.Thisassumptionisusuallycorrectsinceeveryoneattheuniversitywhohas CatalanashisorherfirstlanguageisalsoabletospeakSpanish,andeveryonewhosefirstlanguage isSpanishunderstandsCatalanevenifheorshedoesnotspeakit.Theonlyexceptionsarethe studentsandprofessorswhohaverecentlycometotheuniversityfromoutsideCatalonia. 457

EvaluationoftheResults LinguisticCompetence.Asearlyas1970,beforethechangeofregime,theInstituteofEducational Sciences(InstitutodeCienciasdelaEducacin)oftheUniversityofBarcelonahadbegun,under thenewlyenactedEducationLaw(LeydeEducacin),anexperimentalbilingualeducationproject invariousschools,whichwasbasedonthefollowingapproach:childrenwouldlearntoreadand writeintheirmothertonguebutwouldbeintroducedtotheotherlanguageatthesametime,sothat thereaftertheycouldsharethesameclassroomsandthesamelessons.Subsequently,bothCatalan andSpanishwouldbeusedaslanguagesofinstruction,withthesubjectsineachyearlysequence beingdividedbetweenthetwolanguages.TheresultsshowedthattheintroductionofCatalanasa languageofinstructionconsiderablyimprovedthepupils'competenceinCatalananddidnot adverselyaffecteithertheirscholasticachievementortheircompetenceinSpanish. Sincethen,variousattemptshavebeenmadetoevaluatetheresultsofthechangesintroduced, althoughingeneraltheyhavebeenlimitedtoassessingthelinguisticoutcomes.Themostrecent, andalsothemostambitiousandscientificallyrigorous,ofthesestudieswascarriedoutbythe BureaufortheTeachingofCatalan(Serveid'ensenyamentedelcatala)oftheCatalonian DepartmentofEducation(DepartmentodeEnseanza)andcoordinatedbyN.Garolera.Itspurpose wastoevaluatethecompetenceinCatalanandSpanishofthepupilsinCataloniawhowere studyingthefourthyearofBasicGeneralEducation(averageageten)in1982,andwhowerethe firsttohavereceivedsometypeofeducationinCatalansincethebeginningoftheirschooling. Thesurveyincludedfifteenhundredpupilsfromfiftyfourschools,chosensoastoconstitutea representativesampleofschoolsintheregion,bothbecauseoftheirlocation(accordingtoareas havinggreaterorlessernumbersofCatalanspeakers)andtheamountofattentiongiventoCatalan. Thelatterwascalculatedaccordingtothelanguageofinstructionateachschool,themothertongue oftheteachersandpupils,andthelanguageusedinthedailyoperationoftheschool.Itwasthen possibletoclassifytheschoolsintothreetypesbasedontheimportancegiventoCatalan.These typesweresimilartotheonesdescribedherepreviously.Bymeansofaquestionnairedistributedto pupilsandparents,eachchildwasevaluatedintermsofasetoffactorsthatmightaffecttheresults, forexample,thegeographicoriginoftheparents,theirsociallevel,thelanguageusedinthehome, thelinguisticenvironmentwithinandoutsidethefamily,andtheattitudestowardeachlanguage.At thesametime,eachchildwasevaluatedbytheteachersandassignedascoreforgenerallearning capacity. Lastly,linguisticcompetencewasassessedbytwoparallelseriesoftests,inCatalanandSpanish, respectively,andconsistingoforalcomprehension(words,texts),readingcomprehension(words, texts),oralexpresssion(vocabulary,communicativeskill),writtenexpression(composition), interferences(lexical,morphosyntactic),spelling,andphonetics.Thereliabilityandstatistical consistency 458

ofthetestswerechecked,andalateranalysisconfirmedthatbothserieswereparallelas measurementinstruments. Theresultsobtainedcanbesummarizedasfollows: ThepupilsachievedgreatermasteryofSpanishthanofCatalaninthesampleasawholeandin eachofthegroupscomprisingit,withthesoleexceptionofchildrenwhosemothertonguewas Catalanandwhoattendedvery"Catalanized"schools,referredtoearlierasTypeAschools.Evenin thiscase,however,thelevelofcompetenceinSpanishwashigh. ThestatisticaldispersionintheresultsobtainedforSpanishismuchlessthanthatshownby Catalan.Thismeansthat,whilemostCatalanspeakingchildrenacquireanacceptablecommandof Spanish,asizablegroupofSpanishspeakingpupilsmakeslittleprogressinCatalan.Thisis especiallyapparentinoralexpression,foralmostallCatalanspeakingchildrenarecapableof expressingthemselvesinSpanish,althoughtheoppositedoesnotprovetobethecase. ThedispersionintheresultsforSpanishcorrelatesdirectlywiththegenerallearningcapacityofthe pupilsandonlyslightlywithothervariablesinthesample,suchasmothertongue,linguistic environment,ortypeofschool.ThismeansthatinCatalonianeitherlinguisticoriginnorthetypeof schoolattended(intermsoftheamountofCatalanused)hasasignificanteffectontheprobability thatpupilswillachievegoodcommandofSpanish.Ontheotherhand,thedispersionintheresults forCatalanisrelatedtothelanguage,thelinguisticenvironmentofthesubjects,andthetypeof schoolattended.Onlywhentheinfluenceofthesefactorsiseliminateddotheoutcomesobtained forCatalanshowanycorrelationwithlearningaptitude. Theconclusionsofthestudyjustsummarizedcanalsobestatedanotherway:Inpredominantly CatalanschoolswhereCatalanisthemainlanguageofinstructionandwherethemajorityof teachersandpupilsspeakCatalanastheirfirstlanguage,pupilswhosemothertongueisCatalan acquireahighlevelofproficiencyinCatalanaswellasasatisfactorylevelinSpanish.Spanish speakingpupils,whoattendtheseschoolsinmuchfewernumbers,alsoacquireasatisfactory knowledgeofSpanishandCatalan.Incontrast,inschoolswheretheSpanishlanguageandSpanish speakerspredominate,CatalanspeakingpupilsmaintainCatalanandacquiregoodoralandwritten skillsinSpanish,buttheSpanishspeakers,eventhoughtheycometounderstandwrittenand spokenCatalan,aregenerallynotabletouseitactively,eitherorallyorinwriting. ScholasticAchievement.Inaneducationalsysteminwhichtwolanguagesareused,itisnecessary toexaminenotonlytheresultspertainingtothecompetenceachievedineachlanguage,butalsothe influenceoftheduallanguagesituationontheresultsoftheschoollearningprocess.Asindicated earlier,untilnownorigorousstudiesonthissubjecthavebeencarriedoutinCataloniaanomission thatindeedmeritssomecomment. LetusconsiderfirstthepupilswhosemothertongueisCatalan.Foralongtimethesechildrenwere taughtexclusivelyinSpanish,asituationthatledtovigorousprotestsonthepartofsomeCatalan educators.Atthewellknown 459

SeminaronEducationandBilingualismorganizedbytheInternationalBureauofEducation (BureauInternationald'Education)inLuxembourgin1928,R.Gali,oneofthemaindrivingforces behindeducationalreforminCatalonia,joinedthechorusofthosewhocondemnedbilingual educationor,moreprecisely,educationinalanguagedifferentfromthemothertongue.Gali attributedtoitnotonlynegativeeffectsonintellectualdevelopment,whichwasthetheory advocatedbySaers,butalsoonmoraldevelopment.Todaywearemorecautiousinassessingthe possibleconsequencesofthisexperience,forweknowthattheydependonmanyfactors.Inany case,itisobviousthatwithappropriateteachingtechniques,Catalanspeakingchildrencanbe educatedintheirownlanguagewithoutsufferingadverseeffects,andthat,infact,theresultswillbe favorable.Whatremainstobeinvestigatediswhetherthesepupils,allsocialandpedagogical factorsbeingequal,obtainbetterschoolresultsthanCatalanspeakerswhocontinuetoreceivemost oftheireducationinSpanish. ThemostimportantproblemisposedbypupilswhosemothertongueisSpanishandwhoaretaught mainlyinCatalan.Theavailabledataindicatethatinthesecasesnounfavorableoutcomesoccurin scholasticachievement.However,untilnowSpanishspeakingpupilswhoareeducatedinCatalan arenotonlyfewerinnumber,butarealsousuallyfromschoolswithhighqualityinstruction,where educationinCatalanisofasomewhatexperimentalnature.Itiswellknownthatanyinnovationin pedagogicalpracticecanbesuccessful,atleastinitially,simplyowingtotheenthusiasmofthe peoplecarryingouttheinnovation.Inordertoobtainconclusiveresults,educationinCatalanneeds tobemorewidespread,andbroader,moresystematicevaluativestudiesmustbeconducted.In analyzingtheresults,itwillhavetoberememberedthattherearemoreSpanishspeakingpupils amongthelowersocialstrataofCatalonia,andtheirgreaterincidenceofschoolfailureupon receivingtheireducationinCatalancouldbedue,aboveall,totheirsocialbackground,whichmay hinderthemeveniftheyreceiveamonolingualeducationinSpanishandthisdeficiencycouldbe worsenedbyachangeinlanguage.Asweknow,anumberofcontemporarystudiespurporttoshow thatidenticalsystemsofbilingualeducationmayhavequitedifferenteffectsaccordingtothesocial andculturallevelofpupilsforwhomitisprovided. Outlook Totheextentthatthecurrentsituationcontinuesthatis,theexistenceofanautonomous governmentthatsupportsCatalannationalismandinwhichthepoliticalpartiesagreeastolanguage policyonewouldexpectthepresenceofCatalanintheeducationalsystemtobestrengthenedand progressivelybroadened,althoughwithoutabandoningtheeducationalgoalofattainingcomparable skillineachlanguage.However,oneisledtobelievethattheprogressofCatalanwillbeslower fromnowonsincealargepartofthepopulationofCataloniaspeaksSpanishasitsmothertongue andcustomarylanguage.Inaddition,thefamiliesandschoolsmostinterestedineducationin Catalanhavealreadyseen 460

anumberoftheiraspirationsfulfilled.Whatremainstobeseeniswhetherthefutureprogressof Catalanwillincreasethenumberoftrulybilingualschools,orwhetherthepresentdichotomy betweenprimarilySpanishlanguageschoolsandprimarilyCatalanlanguageschoolswillpersist. Whatdoesseemevidentisthatevenifthelattersituationcontinues,theschoolsystemwillnot produceasplitintheCatalonianpopulationalonglinguisticlines. VALENCIA InValenciaandtheBalearicIslands(Majorca,Minorca,andIbiza),variousdialectsofCatalan Valencian,Majorcan,Minorcan,Ibizanhavebeenspokensincethethirteenthcentury.However, intheseplacestherelationshipbetweenthelocallanguageandtheofficialSpanishlanguageis verydifferentfromthesituationinCatalonia. ThereisonesectionoftheValencianregionwhereCatalanhasneverbeenspoken.Inthe remainingarea,althoughthelanguageachievedbrillianceintheMiddleAges,theculturaland literaryrenaissanceofthepastcenturywashardlynoticed,norwasitaccompaniedbyapolitical movementpressingforautonomy.Thelinguisticsituationwasthereforediglossic,withSpanish asthestrong,literarylanguageandCatalanastherural,familybasedlanguage.Onlyduringthe struggleagainstFrancowasacertainawarenessoftheculturalrootsoftheindigenouslanguage produced.Thisawarenesshadlimitedeffects,firstbecauseitwasrestrictedtoafewuniversity groups,and,aboveall,becausetheidentificationofthelocallanguagewithCatalanseemedto suggestthataconditionofculturaldependencyhadbeenestablishedwithrespecttoBarcelona, thecapitalofCataloniaandcenterofCatalaninfluenceandthiswouldbedetrimentaltothe Valenciansenseofidentity.Takingadvantageofthisfeeling,certainpoliticalgroupsfostered "Valencianism,"asopposedto"Catalanism."Thelinguisticconsequencewasanattemptto standardizeValencianandtoincluderules,particularlyorthographicones,whichweredistinct fromCatalannorms.Theeffortmetwithlittlesuccess,andgraduallytheopinionthatValencian andCatalanwerethesamelanguagedespitesuperficialvariationsgainedground.Nevertheless, thesedisputesandthepoliticalcontroversiesarisingfromthemslowedthedevelopmentof educationinValencia,sothatitwasnotuntil198384thattheautonomousgovernmentof ValenciawasabletoproposetheteachingoftheValencianlanguageinschoolsandtobegin trainingcoursesforteachers.Forsometime,however,therehavealsobeenseveralprivate attemptsatinstructionnotonlyof,butalsoin,Valencian.Thus,itisreasonabletoassumethat therevivalofthelanguageinValencianeducationwillfollowapathsimilartotheonetakenin Catalonia,butatamuchslowerpace. THEBALEARICISLANDS CatalanhasbeenusedchieflyindomesticandruralsettingsintheBalearics,eventhoughthelast centurywitnessedsomethingofaliteraryandcultural 461

renaissance.Thelinguisticsituationcanbecharacterizedasdiglossic,althoughdistinctivetraitscan befoundoneachisland.Minorcaexhibitsthehighestculturallevelandthegreatestliteraryuseof thelocallanguage,whereasIbiza,untilafewyearsago,hadremainedatanextremelyprimitive levelwithahighrateofilliteracy.Thesethreeislands,however,havebecomecentersfor internationaltourism.Thischangehasaffectedthelanguagesituationinthattheknowledgeof foreignlanguages,especiallyEnglish,isnowhighlyvalued. UnlikethesituationinValencia,therehasneverbeenanydoubtintheBalearicsthatthenative language,despitethelocalvariations,isCatalan.Neitherhastherebeenanexcessivedistrustofthe culturalcapital,Barcelonaandifthisfeelinghasoccurred,ithasnotposedaproblem.Giventhese conditions,theautonomousgovernmentoftheBalearicIslandshashadnodifficultyinwinning compliancewiththelegalrequirementsconcerningtheteachingofValencian(thepreviously mentionedDecreeonBilingualismof1979).Thedifficultythathasarisenhasbeenduetothe relativelackofinterestshownbytheautonomousgovernmentinthissubjectand,inthefinal analysis,bythepeopleaffectedbyit. Thecurrentlyavailabledatafortheschoolyear198283showthat50percentofthepupilsinBasic GeneralEducation(agessixtofourteen)receivetheminimumthreehoursaweekofCatalan instructionrequiredbylaw.TheremaindereitherreceivelessthantheminimumornoCatalan instructionatall.Inthevocationalanduniversitypreparatoryprograms,theratioisevenmore unfavorable. Hereaseverywhere,themajorobstacleisthelackofteachersqualifiedtoundertakethenewkindof education.AsinCatalonia,theInstituteofEducationalScienceshasconcerneditselfwithoffering trainingcoursestoteachers,whichsofarhavebeentakenbynearlyhalftheteachersintheislands. Inaddition,theTeachers'College(EscueladeFormacion)seestoitthatthenewteachersknow Catalansothattheymayteachit.Thispermitsustopredictthatthesituationwillundergochange, albeitslowly,andthateventuallyallpupilsintheBalearicswillreceivesufficientCatalan instruction. SomeexperimentalattemptstouseCatalanasaninstructionallanguagealsoexist,butasofnow, neithertheautonomousgovernmentnorthepopulationingeneralseemsinterestedinexpanding them.Theubiquitoustouristsandtheappealofforeignlanguagesmayexplainthisdiminished interestinmothertongueinstruction.Onlyattheuniversitydowefindanyattempttostrengthenthe useofCatalaninteaching,andtheseeffortsareconernedwithuniversityleveleducation. THEBASQUEPROVINCES(EUSKADI) AlthoughBasquenationalistsconsiderthatthefiveterritoriesofGuipuzcoa,Biscay,Alava, Navarre,andtheFrenchPaysBasqueconstituteanindissolubleentity,herewewilltreattheSpanish Basqueregion(Biscay,Alava,andGui 462

puzcoa)andNavarreseparatelysincetheseareascomprisetwoautonomousterritories,eachwith itsowngovernment,withintheframeworkoftheSpanishnation.Onlybriefreferencewillbe madetotheFrenchPaysBasque,includedwithinFrance. Aspreviouslymentioned,theBasquelanguageisveryold.Itisprobablytheoldestlanguagein Europe,andithasresistedeverytypeofinvasion,andpoliticalandculturalannexation. Nevertheless,thepenetrationofSpanishandFrenchintoitshistoricalterritoryhasbeen powerful,althoughunequallydistributed,asshownbythefiguresintheaccompanying tabulation: Basquespeakers(inthousands) Area Population BasqueSpeakers Percentage Guipuzcoa 682 307 45 Biscay 1,152 174 15 Alava 238 18 8 Basqueprovinces 2,072 449 25 Navarre 483 53 11 FrenchPaysBasque 227 78 34 Source:M.Siguan,ed.,Lenguasyeducacin,UniversityofBarcelona,1983,p.23. Whenanationalistmovementemergedinthenineteenthcenturyduringtheindustrializationof theBasqueprovinces,theBasquelanguagewas,ofcourse,strengthenedasasymbolof nationality.Itssituationwassoprecarious,however,thatfewthoughtitcouldonceagainbecome thecommonlanguageoftheBasques.Throughoutthecenturies,Basquehadscarcelybeen nurturedfromaliteraryoracademicstandpoint,norhaditbeenunifiedand,hence,standardized. Aswehaveseen,thenumberofspeakerswassmall,and,unlikeCatalonia,wheretherehad alwaysbeenmanybilinguals,intheBasqueprovincesthecontraryoccurred.Thosewhospoke SpanishhadlosttheuseofBasque,whilethosewhostillspokeBasquelivedinisolated,rural districtsanddidnotknowSpanish.TheproposalthatthemajorityoftheSpanishspeaking populationlearnBasqueseemedtodemandtheimpossible. ButduringtheyearsofstruggleagainstFranco,Basquenationalismregardedthelanguagenot onlyasasymbolofnationalidentitybutalsoasthenecessaryconditionforattainingcultural identity.Inordertoachievethisobjective,itwasnecessarytocarryoutagreateducationaleffort directedtowardtheyoungergenerations,sincetheadultsincludingmilitantsfromthenationalist movementfounditdifficulttolearnBasque. Hence,theikastolascameintobeing.TheseareBasquelanguageschoolscommittedto educatingthechildrenofSpanishspeakingfamilieswhothinkthattheirchildrenshouldbeable toexpressthemselvesinBasque,andthattheonlywaytodosoistoacquirethelanguagein earlychildhood. Thefirstikastolaswereestablishedaround1967,whileGeneralFrancowasstillinpower. Despiteproblemsofeverykindlackoflegalrecognition,eco 463

 nomicdifficulties,andsoonplusthefactthatteachersoftenhadnootherqualificationsthan theirpatrioticenthusiasm,thenumberofikastolasandtheirpupilscontinuedtogrow. In1978,theStatuteofAutonomyoftheBasqueprovinceswasapproved,andtheBasque Parliamentandgovernmentbegantofunction.AsinthecaseofCatalonia,theBasque governmentassumedallresponsibilityforeducationalmattersandforthelanguagepolicy,which wasaimedatintroducingandstrengtheningtheBasquelanguageintheeducationalsystem. TypesofSchools TheBasquearea,liketherestofSpain,hasbothpublicschools,supportedandadministeredby thestate,andprivateschoolsadualsystemtowhichthepreviouslymentionedikastolasmustbe added.TheikastolasareBasquelanguageschoolswhichwereoriginallyprivatesincetheyhad comeintobeingoutsideof,andeveninoppositionto,thegovernmentaladministration.However, theyhavesincebeensubsidizedandarecurrentlyintheprocessofbeingintegratedintothe publicsystem. Thefiguresinthefollowingtabulationindicatetherelativeimportanceofthesevarioustypesof schoolsintheBasqueregion(Euskadi): Elementaryschoolpupils(BasicGeneralEducation)accordingtotypeofschool(in thousands),schoolyear198182 Area PublicSchools Ikastolas PrivateSchools Guipuzcoa 40 23 39 Biscay 116 11 77 Alava 23 2 12 Euskadi 179 36 128 %Euskadi 42 10 37 Source:M.Siguan,ed.,Lenguasyeducacin,UniversityofBarcelona,1983,p.52. AsinCatalonia,theBasquegovernment'spolicyhasbeendesigned,first,toimplementinall schoolstheDecreeonBilingualism(whichestablishedthatallpupilsfromregionswithan indigenouslanguagemustreceiveatleastthreetofivehoursofinstructioninthatlanguageper week),andsecond,toassistschoolswishingtograntgreatercurricularimportancetothat regionallanguage.Theimplementationofthispolicyhasprovedtobeextremelydifficultfora numberofreasons(tobediscussedlater),oneofwhichwasthesmallnumberofteachers initiallycapableofteachingEuskera(Basque)orinEuskera. PublicSchools.AfterthreeyearsofadministrationbytheBasquegovernment,thesituationin thepublicschoolscanbesummarizedasfollows: 464

PercentageofpupilsinBasicGeneralEducation(6to14yearsold)inEuskadi,accordingto amountofBasquelanguageinstruction NoBasqueinstruction 30% Basqueasaschoolsubject(35hours 59% perweek) BilingualeducationinSpanishand 6% Basque EducationprimarilyinBasque 5% Source:M.Siguan,ed.,Lenguasyeducacin,UniversityofBarcelona,1983,p.87. Ikastolas.Theikastolashavegrownveryrapidly,asthefiguresintheaccompanyingtabulation show. SchoolPopulationintheIkastolas Area: Guipuzcoa Biscay Alava SpanishBasque provinces 8,899 54,302 58,235 Navarre 348 5,369 5,727 FrenchPaysBasque 8 506 564 (TheabovefiguresincludepreschoolandBasicGeneralEducationpupils.) Source:M.Siguan,ed.,Lenguasyeducacin,UniversityofBarcelona,1983,p.40. AstheSpanishpoliticalsituationchanged,theeconomicandadministrativeproblemsofthe ikastolasdecreased,eventhoughthenumberofschoolsandpupilsattendingthemgrew.Their pedagogicalproblems,however,increased.Initsoriginalform,theikastolaadmittedSpanish speakingchildren,andfromthefirst,theonlylanguageofinstructionwasBasque.Theargumentfor thisprocedurewasthatitwastheonlywayforchildrenfromnonBasquespeakinghomesto acquiremasteryofthelanguage.Pedagogicaljustificationwasprovidedbythesocalledimmersion method.Itsoonbecameclear,however,thatprematureimmersioninastrangelanguagebrought aboutnumerousproblemsinadaptationandlearning.Inaddition,theacquisitionofEuskeraproved tobelessrapidandthoroughthanhadbeenbelieved,andthescantypedagogicalpreparationof someofthefirstteachersintheikastolascomplicatedthesituationfurther.Becauseofthese difficulties,numerousdiscussionswereheldamongthosereponsiblefortheikastolas.Asaresult, whilesomeoftheseschoolshaveremainedfaithfultotheoriginalconcept,othershavechosento provideagradualintroductionofEuskeratoSpanishspeakingchildren,leadinginsomecasesto truebilingualeducation. 465 196970 5,770 1,958 171 198081 37,145 17,175 5,086 198182 39,128 19,107 5,509

AftertheformationoftheBasquegovernment,theikastolamovementasaneducationsystem outsidetheauthorityofthegovernmentadministrationlostitsreasonforbeing.Todaythe ikastolasarenotonlygenerouslysubsidized;theyarealsointheprocessofbeingintegratedinto thepublicschoolsystemwhilestillretainingtheirindividuality PrivateSchools.TheimportanceofprivateschoolswhichintheBasqueregionaccountfor37 percentoftheschoolpopulationhasalreadybeenindicated.Sinceitwasformed,theBasque governmenthasbeenurgingtheseschoolstointroducetheBasquelanguageandtocomplywith atleasttheminimumrequirementsoftheDecreeonBilingualism.Althoughstatisticsonthe resultshavenotbeenpublished,mostfamilieswhowanttheirchildrentolearnBasquein childhoodsendthemtotheikastolas.ItisthereforelikelythatinterestintheBasquelanguage amongtheremainingprivateschoolsisconsiderablylessandthatBasqueoccupiesasmaller placeintheircurriculumthanitdoesinthatofthepublicschools. EvaluationoftheResults AlthoughstudiesparalleltothosecitedforCataloniaareinprogress,theirfindingshavenotyet beenpublished.Butonemightreadilyassumeandsomelessrigorousstudiesdoconfirmit that,asinCatalonia,theoutcomesdifferaccordingtothelanguageoriginsofthepupils.Basque speakingchildren,evenwithlessSpanishintheeducationalsystem,acquireSpanishfairlyeasily, whereasSpanishspeakingpupilslearntoexpressthemselvescomfortablyinBasqueonlyifthey attendaschoolwithalargeamountofBasqueinstruction.ThegreateruseofSpanishinthe publicandsociallifeoftheBasqueregionexplainsthisdiscrepancy. AsinCatalonia,therearenopublishedstudiesthatrelatethelanguageofinstructionto scholasticachievement,despitethediscussionsheldincertainikastolasonthissubject.But giventhegreatsimilaritybetweenCatalanandSpanish,andthestrikingdifferencesbetween BasqueandSpanish,onemightassumethatinthecaseofBasqueandSpanishitismoredifficult totransfertheknowledgeacquiredinonelanguagetotheother,andthatitisthereforemore probablethateducationimportedinthesecondlanguagewillhaveaninfluenceonacademic achievement.Inanyevent,theneedtoinvestigatethistopicisquiteevident. TeachingStaff.Aspointedoutearlier,themaindifficultyinexpandingtheamountofEuskera ineducationhasbeenthelackofcompetentteachers. Atfirst,theUniversityoftheBasqueRegionwasnotabletoprepareteachersinthisfield,andit wasonlyaftertheestablishmentoftheBasquegovernmentthatteachertrainingcoursesbeganto beorganized.ItmustnotbeforgottenthatprovidingadultteacherswithtraininginBasqueis muchmoredifficultthantrainingtheminCatalansomuchtimeandeffortarerequiredthatfew peopleareabletoattainthegoal. 466

Theonlypossiblesolutionis,ofcourse,thatprospectiveteachersgainsufficientabilityin Euskeraduringthecourseoftheirstudytobeabletouseitinteaching.Someyearsago,the publicteachers'collegeswerenotpreparedtoofferthistraining,andthetaskwasundertakenby achurchrelatedteachers'collegeasitalreadyofferedmostofitsinstructioninEuskera.Since theBasquegovernmenttookoverthemanagementoftheeducationsystem,thethreepublic teachers'collegeslocatedintheBasqueareaalsoensurestudents'competenceinBasque.Texts andTeachingMaterials.Asaresultoftheabsenceofatraditionintheinstructionof,andin, Basque,fifteenyearsagonotonlyweretherefewteacherscapableofundertakingthisinstruction butalsotherewasatotallackoftextbooksandotherteachingmaterialsinBasque.Withinafew years,however,anextraordinaryeffortwascarriedout,despitethelackofprecedentsandmany otherdifficulties,amongthemeconomicproblemsresultingfromthelimitedmarketthatcould absorbsuchmaterials.TodayallthematerialsneededtocoverBasicGeneralEducationaswell asalargeportionofsecondaryeducationcanbefound. TheUniversity AstheBasqueregionacquiredpoliticalautonomy,itsuniversityalsoreceivedalargemeasureof selfdetermination.IthasattemptedtointroduceBasqueintotheuniversitymilieunotonlyasan objectofstudy,butalsoasalanguageofcommunicationandeducation.Toanevengreater extentthanwithprimaryeducation,thisrepresentedacompleteinnovationsinceuniversity instructioninBasquehadneverbeforeexisted.EvenuniversityeducationinSpanishwasvery recentasnouniversityatallhadexistedintheBasqueregionuntilafewyearsago.Theultimate goalisforalluniversitydisciplinestobetaughtinbothSpanishandBasque.Eventhough attainmentofthisobjectiveisstillinthedistantfuture,significantprogressinthisdirectionhas alreadybeenmade,andperhaps20percentofalluniversitycoursescanbetakeninbothSpanish andBasque.Forthistooccur,itwasnecessarytoengageinagreatefforttoextendtheBasque languageamongfacultyandstudents,establishascientificvocabulary,andpreparetextbooksin differentdisciplines.ProblemsandProspects.Fromthedatapresentedabove,itcanbe concludedthatthejuvenilepopulationoftheBasqueregionisdistributedapproximatelyas follows: About15percentspeakEuskeraastheirmothertongueandaretaughtprimarilyinSpanish butreceivesomeEuskerainstruction. Nearly10percentspeakSpanishastheirmothertongueandaretaughtprimarilyorpartlyin Euskera. About33percentspeakSpanishastheirmothertongueandaretaughtinSpanish,but receivesomeEuskerainstruction.Ofthose,itcanbeestimatedthat5percentofthe populationwillcontinuetoexpandtheirknowledgeofEuskeraandwillbeabletospeak 467

Thus,itcanbeanticipatedthatwithinafewyears,nearly40percentofthe populationwillbeabletospeakEuskeraonahabitualbasis,inadditiontoanother 30percentwhowillbeabletounderstandittosomeextent.Thesignificanceof thesefiguresbecomesevidentifwerecallthattheproportionofBasquespeakersin thegeneralpopulationiscurrently25percent.Evenmoreimportantisthefactthat untilafewyearsagoBasquewasalanguageincompleteregression,usedalmost exclusivelyinruralandfamilysettings.Now,forthefirsttimeinmanycenturies,the numberofBasquespeakers,insteadofdecreasing,isincreasing,asistheofficial andurbanuseofthelanguage. Itisimpossibletopredictjusthowfarthisexpansionwillgo;however,alongsidethe itwith encouragingdata,itmustberememberedthattherearealsodifficultiesand facility.The limitations.Forexample,thegreatlinguisticdistancebetweenEuskeraandSpanish remaining makestheprocessoflearningorrevivingEuskeraagainstaSpanishbackground 30percent quitedifficultmuchmoredifficultthanlearningCatalanandGalicianfrom willonly Spanish(andviceversa).ASpanishspeakerwhogoestoCataloniawithno achieve knowledgeofCatalanwillprobablybeabletounderstandCatalanattheendofa various yearevenifonlyonanelementarylevelprovidedheorshebringsaminimumof otherlevels goodwill,concentration,andefforttothetask.Thismakesitnotunreasonableto oforaland suggestinanypublicgatheringthateachpersonspeakthelanguageheorshe written prefers,ontheassumptionthateveryonemoreorlessunderstandstheother expression. language.SuchassumptionsarenotpossibleintheBasqueregion.Tolearnand Lastly, evenmerelytounderstandEuskerafromSpanishrequiresasystematiceffortthat about30 mustbesustainedoveralongperiodoftime. percentof the ThereareotherdifficultiesintrinsictotheBasquelanguage,firstandforemostof population whichisitsinternalcohesion.Inorderforalanguagetobeusedasamediumof doesnotyet instruction,andindeedeventobetaught,itmustbestandardized,thatis,itmust receiveany havealexiconandasinglesetofgrammaticalandorthographicrulesthatdefinethe systematic "normal"useofthelanguage.Asaresultofanalmostexclusivelyoraltransmission, Euskera Basqueexhibitsgreatdialectalvariety.Eventhoughanagreementwasreachedsome instruction. timeagoonlanguageunity,theinfluenceofthevariousdialectscontinuestobe verystrong. Evenmoreseriousistheproblemofmodernizingthevocabulary.Inorderfora languagetohaveofficialandliteraryuses,inorderforittobeusedasamediumof communicationinuniversities,government,andbusiness,itmusthaveatits disposalavocabularycomparabletothatoflanguageswithalongtraditionofusein theseendeavors.ThetraditionalBasquelanguageisobviouslylackinginthis respect,andthemodernizationofitsvocabularywillnecessitategreateffort.Atthis point,astillunresolvedconflictremainsbetweenthosewho 468

defendtheincorporationofGreekandLatinroots(whichformthebasisofthelearnedvocabulary inmostofthelanguagesofourculturalmilieu)andthosewho,onthecontrary,advocatethat indigenousBasquerootsbefullyutilized. ButthemajordifficultyintherevivalandexpansionofEuskeraisthepresenceofSpanish(and FrenchinthePaysBasque),withtheinfluenceitwieldsthroughitslongliteraryandcultural history,itslargenumberofspeakers,anditsuseintheinternationalarena.Eveninthehypothetical situationofcompletepoliticalindependence,itisdifficulttoimagineEuskeraastheonlylanguage oftheBasques.Itwouldhavetocoexistwithaninternationallanguageofcommunication,whichin theBasqueregionwouldlogicallycontinuetobeSpanish. Thelimitationsimposedbythissituationareeasytoenvisage,butletuspointoutanotherone, hardlyobserveduntilnow,butwhichwillbecomeincreasinglyimportant.Unlikethepast,when mostBasqueswereeitherSpanishorBasquemonolinguals,thepervasivenessofBasquein educationisproducingagenerationofbilingualscapableofexpressingthemselvesinboth languages.Obviously,thisphenomenonisgoingtoinfluencetheevolutionoftheBasquelanguage, whichforcenturieshadoweditsstrengthandoriginalitytotheisolationandthemonolingualism,of itsspeakers.Butfromnowon,BasquewillincreasinglybeusedbypeoplewhoalsoknowSpanish, alanguagericherthanBasqueatpresent,andtheywilluseBasqueinsituationswhereSpanishis moresuitable.BilingualsspeakingBasquewillsurelyuseSpanishidiomsthatBasquedoesnot possess,andtheywillalsoceaseusinginherentlyBasqueformsthathavenocounterpartinSpanish. Therefore,itmayhappenthatthemoreBasquespreads,themoreitwillbealteredlosingitspurity andindividualcharacteristics,anddrawingnearertoSpanish. Eveniftheselimitationsareacknowledged,itcannotbedeniedthatthankstoagreateducational push,theBasquelanguagehaspassedfromastateofregressiontooneofexpansion. NAVARRE BasquecontinuestobealivinglanguageinnorthernNavarre,ontheFrenchborder,althoughthe numberofitsspeakersdoesnotrepresentmorethan10percentofthetotalpopulation. IntheareawhereBasqueismaintained,itisinasituationsimilartotheonedescribedforEuskadi, andthestrengtheningofBasquenationalismandtherenewedinterestintheBasquelanguageasa symbolofnationalidentitywillundoubtedlyhaverepercussionsinNavarre.Agoodexampleof suchinfluenceisseenintheestablishmentofikastolasatvariouslocationsinNavarre,evenwhere historyhasleftnorecordofBasqueeverhavingbeenspokenthere. Asalreadyindicated,somesixthousandpupilsareeducatedinikastolasinNavarre,which representssomewhatmorethan10percentoftheschoolpopulation.Theseikastolashavethesame pedagogicalproblemsasthoseintheBasqueprovinces,andtheylooktothatregionforsolutions. 469

TheexpansionofeducationinBasqueand,ingeneral,theculturalrevivaloftheBasque languagehaveencounteredamajorobstacleinNavarre:BasquenationalismregardsNavarreas anintegralpartoftheBasquenation,butinthepoliticalinstitutionsofNavarretheregional Parliamentandthegovernmenttheadvocatesofthispositionrepresentasmallminority. Theperfectlypredictableresultofthissituationisthat,eventhoughthelocalgovernmenthas affirmeditsdesiretoextendknowledgeofBasquetoallsectorsespeciallytotheeducational domain,insofarasparentsdesireittheprogressachievedtodatehasbeenquitelimited.The ikastolasremainaprivatemovementfacingeconomicandadministrativedifficulties.Asfaras publicschoolsareconcerned,itisonlyintheBasquespeakingareasthattheDecreeon Bilingualismiscarriedoutandthiswithdifficulty,owingtothelackoftrainedteachers.In orderforinstructionof,andin,Basquetobeestablishedonmoresolidfooting,wemustwaitfor politicalrelationsbetweenNavarreandtheBasqueprovincestobeclarified. GALICIA Sociologicalstudiesareinagreementthatbetween70and90percentofGalicia's3million inhabitantsspeakGaliciantoagreaterorlesserextent.Theyalsoagreethatthelinguistic situationistypicallydiglossic:Galicianisspokenprimarilyinruralareas,whileSpanish predominatesinthecity;Galicianisusedaboveallinthefamilycircleandindailylife,while Spanishisthelanguageofpublicandofficialaffairs.Thisisequivalenttosayingthat,even thoughmostGaliciansareabletospeakbothlanguages,theyconsiderSpanishtobesuperior.To appreciatethissituation,itisnecessarytobearinmindthat,unlikeCataloniaandtheBasque region,Galiciahasnotexperiencedindustrialandeconomicdevelopmentbut,rather,has continuedtobeanimpoverishedagriculturalregion,evenrelativetotheaverageSpanishlevelof development. Thissituationisslowlychanging.First,certainintellectualgroups,especiallyattheUniversityof SantiagodeCompostela,havebroughtpressuretoreestablishtheliteraryuseofthelanguage, and,inparticular,itsuseineducation.AnumberofcoursesaregiveninGalicianatthe universityitself. Inaddition,inrecentyearsGaliciahasreceivedastatuteofautonomyprovidingitwitha regionalgovernmenthavingauthorityovertheeducationalsystem.UnlikeCataloniaorthe Basqueregion,wherethepowerintherespectivegovernmentsisoccupiedbythenationalist parties,inGaliciathereisnoimportantnationalistmovement.Itisthusafairassumptionthatthe regionalgovernmentislessinterestedinthepromotionofthelocallanguage. Nevertheless,thepresenceofGalicianintheeducationalsystemnonexistentafewyearsago hasincreasedconsiderably,evenifmuchmoreslowlythaninCataloniaandtheBasque provinces.In1981,50percentoftheschoolpupilsinGaliciaweretaughtGalician,andthis proportionhasprobablyincreasedsincethen.Tomakesuchinstructionpossible,theuniversity hasorganizedtraining 470

coursesforteacherswhoarealreadyemployed,whileprospectiveteachersarenowabletoreceive thistrainingduringthecourseoftheirstudies. Verylittlehasbeendone,ontheotherhand,toutilizeGalicianasamediumofinstructionin primaryorsecondaryeducation.SeveralattemptshavebeenmadetouseGalicianastheinitial languageofinstructionforGalicianspeakingpupils,andsomewhatfewerattemptshavebeenmade touseitastheexclusivelanguageofinstruction,butnoneofthesehasreceivedmuchsupport.The regionalgovernmenthasdecidedthatifGalicianistobeusedasthelanguageofinstructionina school,itmustbeformallyrequestedbythepupils'parentsand,onthewhole,parentshavenot shownmuchinterestinsuchaninnovation.ThecurrentobjectiveoftheGaliciangovernmentseems toberestrictedtoextendingtheteachingofGalicianasaschoolsubjecttoallpupils,exceptforthe previouslymentionedcaseoftheuniversity. TheteachingofGalician,togetherwithitsuseasavehicleofculture,presentsdifficultiessimilarto thoseencounteredinotherlanguages.Thestandardizationofthelanguagevocabulary,grammar, orthographytheoreticallydoesnotpresentaproblem,sincedialectaldifferencesaresmalland Galiciandoeshavearelativelyimportantliterarytradition.Likewise,problemsconcerningthe modernizationofvocabularyoughtnottoariseinprinciple,owingtothefactthatGalicianisa RomancelanguageandmostofthecontemporarytechnicalandculturalvocabularyisfromGreek andLatinroots.However,anunusualcontroversyhasariseninconnectionwiththeissuesof standardizationandmodernization.TheexpansionoftheGalicianpeopletothesouthintheMiddle Ageswasaccompaniedbytheextensionofthelanguage,butsoonafterwardstheterritorywhere thisexpansiontookplacebecameanindependentcountry,Portugal.Thispromptedthespoken languagetoevolveintoaliterarylanguagewithinternationalinfluence.Thus,itwouldappearthat thereisasimplesolutiontotheproblemofthemodernizationofGalician,thatis,toadopt Portugueseasamodel.Butcuriously,neitherthePortuguesenortheGalicianswanttorecalltheir commonbeginnings.ThePortuguesedonotwanttoberemindedthattheirlanguageoriginatedin oneofthepoorestruralareasofSpain,andtheGaliciansthinkthattoidentifythemselveswith PortugueseortosimplyapproachitwouldbeequivalenttosubmittingtoPortuguesecultureand acceptingtheintellectualleadershipofLisbon.Asaresult,themodernizationofGalicianhas provokedconsiderablecontroversybetweentheadvocatesandopponentsofdrawingonthe Portuguesemodel. Aswithallminoritylanguages,themajorobstacletotheextensionofGalicianisthesmallsizeof theGalicianspeakingpopulation(whichhaseconomicandvariousotherconsequences)andthe positionofinferioritywhichtheminoritylanguageoccupieswithrespecttothelanguagesexisting alongsideit.ButinthecaseofGalicianwemustaddthediglossicsituationreferredtoabove.While inCataloniaortheBasqueregionthelanguagehasbecome'asymbolofidentityandcollective pride,andincertaincircumstancescanbeameansofobtainingprestigeandsocialadvancement,in Galiciathenativelanguageisassociated 471

withthepovertyofpeasantlife.Neithersocialadvancementnoremigrationthefateofmany Galicianswillfollowfromthelearningofanotherlanguage.Whilethissituationcontinues,itis unlikelythatGalicianfamilieswillvieweducationinGalicianasarightthatisworthclaiming. OTHERTYPESOFBILINGUALEDUCATION Priortothe1970GeneralLawonEducation(LeyGeneraldeEducacin),theSpanish educationalsystemseparatedchildrenattheageofelevenintothosewhobegansecondary educationandthosewhocontinuedattheprimaryleveluntiltheageoffourteen.Pupilsentering secondaryeducationimmediatelystartedthestudyofaforeignlanguage,usuallyFrench,and latertheycouldbeginanother.TheGeneralLawonEducationunifiedtheeducationalsystemfor allpupilsuptotheageoffourteenandestablishedthattheintroductiontoaforeignlanguage wouldbeginforeveryoneatageeleven.Butinconsiderationofthemagnitudeofthechange requiredbytheunificationoftheeducationalsystem,itwasrecognizedthatthegeneral expansionofforeignlanguageinstructionshouldbeaccomplishedgraduallyandaccordingtothe availablemeans,inparticular,theteachers. Thefactofthematteristhatdespitethepassageoftime,thisexpansionhasnotyettakenplace. Althoughtherearesomeveryinterestingattempts,includingtheearlyintroductionofaforeign language,asubstantialnumberofpupilsfinishBasicGeneralEducationattheageoffourteen withouthavingreceivedanyforeignlanguageinstruction. Atthesametime,socialdemandforforeignlanguagestudyduringtheschoolyearshasgrown noticeably,andinsofarasithasnotbeensatisfiedbythepublicschools,privateinitiativeshave emergedtofulfullthisfunction.Amongthemeasurestakenaresupplementaryclassesoutside thenormalschoolhours,aswellasprivateinstitutionsthatofferearlybilingualeducation, beginningwiththepreschoolstage,ineitherFrenchor,moreoften,English.Inaddition,there aretheforeignschools,mainlyFrenchandGerman,whichareoldandwellregardedschoolsthat offerauthenticbilingualeducationofhighqualityinvariousSpanishcities. Thesocialdemandforforeignlanguagestudyisparticularlystronginsomeoftheareaswithan indigenouslanguage,especiallyinCataloniaandtheBasqueregion,borderregionswithahigh economicandculturallevelwheretheknowledgeofforeignlanguagesisquitewidespread.In theseplaces,theintroductionofthelocallanguagehasmadeitnecessarytotakeintoaccountthe presenceofthreelanguagesintheeducationalsystem:thenativelanguage,CatalanorBasque; theofficiallanguageofthecountry,Spanish;andaforeignlanguage. Thisproblemisnotinsoluble.Barcelonahasatleastoneschoolatthislevelwhichcombines bilingualinstructionbasedonthetwonativelanguages(CatalanandSpanish)withtheearly introductionofFrenchandthelaterstudyofEnglishinordertofulfilltherequirementsofthe Europeanbaccalaureate.Thisschool 472

isobviouslyofhighqualityandpedagogicallysuperiortotheaveragepublicorprivateschool.But ofalltheregionalgovernments,itisevidentthatthoseofCataloniaandtheBasqueregionand, generallyspeaking,ofalltheareaswiththeirownlanguagehavetakenupthechallengeofoffering foreignlanguageinstructionandbilingualeducationtoalltheirpupils.Ifthisgoalisnotachieved, theimpressionwouldbegiventhattheintroductionoftheregionallanguageswouldpreventor diminishthelearningofaforeignlanguage.Asaresult,theinclusionofthenativelanguageinthe schoolprogramwouldbeunpopular,atleastamongcertainsocialgroups. BIBLIOGRAPHY BureauInternationald'Education.1928.Lebilinguismeetl'education.(TravauxdelaConferencede Luxemburg.)Geneva. DiexN.1981.LaslenguasdeEspaa.Public.delMinisteriodeEducacin.Madrid. EntwistleJ.W.1969.TheSpanishLanguage,TogetherwithPortuguese,Catalan,andBasque. London:FaberandFaber. GeneralitatdeCatalunya.1983.Cuatreanysdecatalal'escola.Barcelona,1983. RevistadeEducacin(Madrid),No.268(die.1981).Nmeromonogrfico:"Educaciny bilinguismo." RevistadeOccidente(Madrid),1982.No.1011(February).Nmeromonogrfico:"El bilinguismo:problemticayrealidad." SiguanM.1984."LanguageandEducationinCatalonia."InProspects.(UNESCO).Paris1984. SiguanM.,ed.1983.Lenguasyeducacinenelmbitodelestadoespaol.Publicacionesdela UniversidaddeBarcelona. 473

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 474

24KennethHyltenstamandLenoreArnberg BILINGUALISMANDEDUCATIONOFIMMIGRANTCHILDRENANDADULTSIN SWEDEN SwedenissometimessaidtohavebeenanethnicallyhomogeneoussocietyupuntiltheEuropean labormigrationchangedthesituationradicallyinthe1960s.Suchaclaimoverlooksthefactthat Swedenhousestwoindigenousminoritieswithinitspresentborders:theSaameorLapps,who areconsideredtobetheoriginalpopulationofnorthernScandinavia,andtheFinnsinthe SwedishpartoftheTorneValleyattheFinnishborder.Italsodisregardsthemigrationofvarious ethnicgroupstoSwedenduringthepastcenturies,someofwhomhavebeentotallyabsorbed intothemajoritypopulation,whileothershavemaintainedtheirethnicidentity.Nonetheless,the claimastoSweden'sethnichomogeneityisnottotallyunfounded.Comparedwithanumberof Europeanandothercountries,themajoritypopulationofSwedeniscomposedprimarilyofone ethnicgroupwithfewforeignelements. SinceethnicityormothertongueaffiliationisnotregisteredinSwedishcensusstatistics,itis difficulttoobtainfiguresconcerningthesizeoftheindigenousminorities.Accordingtosome estimations,thetotalSaamepopulationdoesnotexceedfifteenthousand(SOS,1984:147).The 1980PopulationsandHousingCensusregisteredonlysevenhundredpersonswhosupported themselvesbymeansofreindeerherding,theSaame'straditionaloccupation.(Thisfigurewas estimatedattwentyfivehundredbyArnstbergandEhnin1976.)TheSaamelanguagespokenin Swedenisdividedintothreedialectsthataremutuallyincomprehensible.ItbelongstotheFinno Ugricgroupoflanguages. AlthoughthepopulationoftheentireTorneValleyisethnicallyFinnish,in1809whenSweden cededFinlandtoRussia,thevalleywasdividedalongtheTorneRiver,formingtheSwedish Finnishborder.ThepopulationintheSwedishpartofthevalleywassubsequentlysubjectedtoa massiveassimilationcampaign,althoughthiscampaigndidnotbeginuntilthelatenineteenth centurywhen 475

nationalisticnotionsconcerningtheideaofonepeoplespeakingonelanguagelivinginonecountry begantogainpopularityinEurope.Yet,Finnishhasbeenmaintaineduntilthepresenttime.The presentlinguisticsituationintheSwedishTorneValleyhasbeendescribedasadiglossicone. Finnishisconsideredthe"low"varietyforeverydayoraluse,butalsoforuseinthespecialtypeof religioussectthatiswidelyspreadinthearea,thesocalledLaestadianismandSwedishthe"high" varietyusedinmoreformalorofficialsituations,atschool,inbusiness,andincommunication withtheauthorities(Jaakola,1973). ThemostimportantethnicgroupsthathavemigratedtoSwedeninhistoricaltimesaretheGermans, mainlyanelitegroupofmerchantsandpublicofficialswhocamefromthetwelfthtothesixteenth centuries;theFinns,farmerswhosettledinremoteanduninhabitedareasofSwedenduringthe sixteenthandseventeenthcenturies;theWalloons,ironmanufacturersandironworkersfrom Belgium,duringtheseventeenthcentury;theJewsfromtheseventeenthcenturyonwards;andthe Gypsiesfromthesixteenthcenturyon.Amongthesegroups,onlytheJewsandtheGypsieshave maintainedtheirethnicidentity,thesituationbeingsimilartothatfoundinmanyothercountries. ThepresentnumberofJewsinSwedenisapproximatelyfourteenthousand.ThenumberofGypsies isestimatedatthreethousandtothreethousandfivehundred(cf.ArnstbergandEhn,1976). FollowingWorldWarII,Swedenbecamean"immigrationcountry."Thefirstimmigrationwavecan becharacterizedasrefugeeimmigration.Duringthelasttwoyearsofthewar,alargegroupof refugeesfromtheBalticcountries,numberingapproximatelythirtyfivethousandpeople,arrivedin Sweden.Toalargeextent,membersofthisgrouphaveremainedinthecountry.TheEstonians,who comprisethegreatestnumber,haveespeciallysucceededinmaintainingtheirlinguisticandcultural heritageuntilthepresentday;anumberofthirdgenerationchildrenspeakEstonian.DuringWorld WarII,alargenumberofDanesandNorwegiansalsofledtoSweden,butmanyreturnedhome whenthesituationbecamenormalizedinthehomecountries.Thesamewastrueformanyofthose refugeeswhoweretemporarilytransferredtoSwedenfromthecontinent. Labormarketimmigrationbeganinthe1950s,initiallywithagroupofItalianswhowereemployed inSwedeninaccordancewithabilateralagreementbetweenthetwocountries.Intheseearlyyears oflabormarketmigrations,workersfromWestGermany,theNetherlands,andAustriawerethe mostpredominantgroupsasidefromtheItalians.Duringthe1960s,whenthedemandforlabor couldnotbefulfilledwithinSweden,theannualnumberofimmigrantsincreasedfrom approximately25,000toapeakof73,500in1970(Widgren,1980:21).Thelargestgroupsduring theseyearscamefromYugoslavia,Greece,andTurkey. In1967,demandsfromtheSwedishtradeunionmovementledtogovernmentalrestrictionsonlabor marketimmigrationfromoutsidetheNordiccountries,resultinginrequirementsthatworkand livingarrangementshadtobemadepriortoentryintothecountry.(TheNordiccountrieshavehad anagreement 476

concerningacommonlabormarketsince1954.)Asaresult,immigrationdecreasedduringthe 1970s,duringwhichtimetheannualnumberofimmigrantshasrangedfromtwentyfivetoforty thousand(in1982itwas25,100[SOS,1984:14]).Anothereffectwasachangeintheconstellation oftheimmigrantgroupasawhole.Soonaftertherestrictionswereenforced,theproportionof immigrantsfromtheNordiccountriesincreaseddrastically,andduringashortperiodinthelate 1960s,itcomprisedapproximately75percentoftotalimmigration.Thisproportionhasdeclined since1975,in1981consistingof36percent(StatisticsSweden,1983:10).Italsomeantthatlabor marketimmigrationcametoahaltandwasreplacedbywhathasbeenreferredtoasconsequential or"familyrelated"immigration,thatis,immigrationinvolvingnextofkintoalreadyestablished immigrants.Asidefromthisgroup,refugees,whoeitherhavecometoSwedenindependentlyorasa resultofSwedishpoliticalinitiatives,comprisedasubstantialproportion.Wavesofrefugeeshave continuouslyenteredSweden,bothduringthelabormarketimmigrationperiod(fromHungaryin the1950sandCzechoslovakiaandPolandinthe1960s)andduringlaterperiods(fromLatin America,Turkey,Vietnam,Uganda,Iran,Polandagain,andLebanon). Since1980,therehasbeenacontinuousdecreaseintheannualnumberofimmigrants;in1983,the numberwas22,291,whichisthelowestfiguresince1962(HammarandReinans,1984:3).In 1984,however,thetrendwasreversedwhena14percentincreaseinrelationto1983wasregistered. Table24.1(fromWidgren,1980:24)showsthestructureofalienimmigrationtoSwedenduring 1977.Atthistime,theimmigrationpeakofthe1970swasreached.Theproportionsinthevarious backgroundsofthenonNordicimmigrantshaveremainedapproximatelythesamesincethattime. IfwelookatthoseforeignnationalsresidinginSweden,acharacteristicfeatureistheenormous heterogeneityasregardsnationality,adevelopmentthathasbecomeincreasinglytypicalduringthe lastdecade.Table24.2(StatisticsSweden,1983:12)showsaranklistingoftheforeignnationals accordingtotheircountryoforigin. Ascanbeseen,alargeproportionoftheimmigrantscomefromFinland.Asaconsequence,the opportunitiesforbilingualeducationprogramsandsocialserviceshavebeengreaterbothinnumber andinvarietyfortheFinnishgroupthanforotherimmigrantgroups.Thefactthattheremainderof theimmigrantpopulationiscomprisedofmanysmallgroupssome150nationalitieshashad importantconsequencesforboththedevelopmentofeducationalprogramsandthedirectionof research,aswillbeseeninalatersection. Attheendof1983,thenumberofforeigncitizensresidinginSwedenwasslightlybelowfour hundredthousand.Withtheinclusionofnaturalizedimmigrants,theforeignbornpopulationin Swedenamountedto637,463persons,whichis7.7percentofthetotalSwedishpopulationof approximately8.3million.About50percentoftheforeignbornpopulationwasborninoneofthe Nordiccountries,amajorityoftheseinFinland(HammarandReinans,1984:19ff). 477

Table24.1 CompositionoftheImmigrationtoSwedenbyForeignCitizensduring1977 Category Number %ofthetotal immigrant population 51 49 9230 930 3360 1650 1920 790 240 190 760 100 24 2 9 4 5 2 1 1 2 48 5 18 9 10 4 1 1 4 100 %ofthenon Scandinavian immigrant population

Scandinavians 19640 NonScandinavians: 19070 familymembers refugeestransferredto SwedenonSwedish initiative otherrefugees labormarketimmigrants adoptedchildren gueststudents "humanitarian" cases returningSwedes(with foreigncitizenship) Others Total 38710 THEPRESENTSITUATION

Thedistinctionbetweenindigenousminoritiesandimmigrantswillnotbemaintainedthroughout thepresentsection.Rather,thefocuswillbeontheimmigrantsituation;theindigenous minoritieswillbementionedwhenpossiblebutwithouttoogreatdetail. Language Asmentionedabove,nocensusdataareavailableconcerningwhichlanguagesarespokenamong theimmigrantpopulationinSwedenoramongnaturalizedornativeSwedes,includingthe indigenousminorities.Therefore,figuresonthelanguagesituationarebasedonestimationsonly. Asregardsthesituationforschoolchildren,however,theinformationavailableismorereliable, since"homelanguageotherthanSwedish"isregisteredforallpupils. ItisdifficulttoestimatethenumberofspeakersofSaame,sincethoseSaamewhoarenot reindeerherdersaredispersedthroughoutthecountry.Inaninterviewstudyoflanguageand cultureamongpresentdaySaame,H.Johansson(1975)investigatedasampleof233 nonreindeerherdingand113reindeerherdingSaame.Thissamplewasestimatedtorepresent everyseventeenthadultperson 478

Table24.2 ForeignNationalsinSwedenat31stDecember,1981,byCitizenshipandPercentagesofAll ForeignNationals Countryof citizenship Finland Yugoslavia Denmark Norway Turkey Greece WestGermany(BDR) Poland UK Chile USA Italy Iceland Iran Spain Austria Hungary Vietnam France Netherlands Switzerland Uruguay Argentina India Syria Portugal Bolivia Total 171994 38771 28305 25352 19493 13820 13337 10703 8828 7904 5781 4524 3698 3344 3287 3243 2836 2734 2355 2256 2155 1965 1738 1661 1647 1573 1562 479 Percentageofall foreignnationals 41.5 9.4 6.8 6.1 4.7 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

 Countryof citizenship Lebanon Ethiopia Morocco Thailand Czechoslovakia Japan USSR Tunisia Iraq China Pakistan Israel Colombia SriLanka Romania Oceania Algeria Canada Brazil Korea(South) Australia Statelessand unspecified Othercountries Allcountries Percentage ofall foreign nationals 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 480 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.0 100.0

Total 1557 1392 1376 1186 1146 1026 1003 969 890 844 784 727 701 649 622 608 569 569 529 516 501 2845 8126 414 001

 Table24.3 KnowledgeofSaameamongReindeerHerdingandNonReindeerHerdingSaame Cannot Cannot Cannot Cannot understand speak read write Reindeerherding 5% 20% 45% 80% Nonreindeer 20% 40% 65% 85% herding Table24.4 SelfRatingofBilingualProficiencyamongtheTorneValleyFinnishMinoritybyAge Groups KnowFinnish Know Age andSwedish Swedish % (N) equallywell best 5564 55 25 20 100 (69) 4554 48 25 27 100 (59) 3544 46 28 26 100 (63) 2534 31 21 48 100 (48) 1524 20 19 61 100 (107) intheentirepopulation.Johansson'sinvestigationgivesapictureofthedecreasingknowledgeof Saameamongtheyoungergeneration;50percentinthereindeerherdinggroupand90percentin thenondeerherdinggroupstatedthatnoneoftheirchildrenknewSaame.Table24.3showsthe knowledgeofSaameinthetwogroups.(ThefiguresarebasedonJohansson,1975:121.) TheFinnishspeakingindigenousminorityofnorthernSwedenispresentlyestimatedtoconsist ofbetweenthirtythousand(SOS,1984:120)andfortythousand(Wande,1982:2)persons.Inan interviewsurveyoftheTorneValleyFinnishminority(Jaakola,1973),bilingualsubjectswere askedtoratetheirlevelofproficiencyinbothoftheirlanguages.Table24.4fromJaakola (1973:63)showsthatFinnishplaysalessimportantroleamongtheyoungergenerationthan amongtheolder;thesituationseemstobesimilartothatoftheSaameminority.On 481 Know Finnish best

Table24.5 EstimatedNumberofSpeakersofCertainLanguagesinSweden Finnish 270000 SerboCroatian 34000 Greek 21000 Estonian 20000 Spanish 19800 Polish 18800 Hungarian 16900 Italian 8800 Turkish 8500 theotherhand,96percentofthoseinterviewed(N=347)consideredthemselvestobebilingual, atleasttosomedegree(Jaakola,1973:61). InastudyofTorneValleyschoolchildren(tenyearolds)andtheirparents,wherelanguage proficiencyamongthechildrenwasassessedboththroughselfratingandtesting(Rnmarkand Wikstrm,1980),resultsverysimilartothoseofJaakolawerefound.Forexample,only20 percentofthesubjectsweremoreproficientinFinnishthaninSwedish.Rnmarkand Wikstrm'sinterpretationwasanobviousone,thatis,thatalanguageshiftwastakingplace. Estimationsregardingthesizeofthedifferentlanguagesamongimmigrantgroupshavebeen madefromtimetotime.Forexample,theSwedishImmigrationBoard(SIV)carriedoutasurvey intheearly1980sinordertoestablishabasisfortheplanningofsocalledmultilingualsocial services(SIV,1982:79).Table24.5showstheresultsconcerningnineimmigrantgroups. LanguagesotherthanthosepresentedinTable24.5alsohavesubstantialnumbersofspeakers, however.ThestatisticsasofDecember31,1981,for"personsbornabroad,"whichcanbeused foraroughestimationforthenumberofspeakersofcertainlanguages,includedapproximately fortytwothousandpersonsfromDenmarkandNorway,respectively;sixteenthousandfrom NorthAmerica;eightyfivehundredfromGreatBritain;thirtyeightthousandfromWest Germany;andseventhousandfromAustria(StatisticsSweden,1983).Itshouldberecognized thatthefiguresinTable24.5representaroughapproximationonly.Forexample,figuresfor speakersofEstonianhaverangedfromsixteenthousandtotwentyfivethousandaccordingto varioussources(cf.Raag,1983:18). 482

 Table24.6 SelfRatingofProficiencyinEstonianamongEstonianImmigrantsinSweden Alternativeresponses Distributionofresponses Generation

IknowEstonian: Ia Ib II betterthanSwedish 80 4 0 aswellasSwedish 15 11 0 somewhatworsethanSwedish 5 28 53 considerablyworsethanSwedish 0 46 44 rudimentarily 0 11 3 Ia:Personsborn1930,i.e.,whowereabovetheageofadolescence atthetimeofimmigration Ib:Personsborn19311944,i.e.,personswhoarrivedinSwedenas children II:Personsborn1944,i.e.,personsborninSweden Littleresearchhasbeenconductedonthemaintenanceofimmigrantlanguagebeyondthefirst generation.R.Raag(1982),however,askedninetyeightfirstandsecondgenerationEstoniansto ratetheirproficiencylevelsofEstonian.Table24.6showstheresultfromthisstudy. Ongoingresearch(Boyd,1984)hasinvestigatedtheuseofFinnish,aswellasotherimmigrant languages,amongsecondgenerationfifteenyearolds.Table24.7fromS.Boyd(1984),which concernschildrenfromfamilieswherebothparentsspeakeitherFinnish("fifi")orlanguages otherthanSwedishorFinnish("anan"),showsthatamajorityofthechildrenusetheminority languagewiththeirparents,whileSwedishdominatesincontactswithsiblingsandfriends,even whenthesearebilingual. AsBoydpointsout,however,theseresultsmaynotbegeneralizableinallrespects.Onereasonis thatthesubjectsstudiedhadgrownuppriortotheperiodduringwhichtheHomeLanguage Reform,whichprovidesstudentswithmothertongueinstructionintheschools,wasenacted.It mayalsobethecasethatthegroupoffifteenyearoldsisnotrepresentativeofotheragegroups owingtopossibleagespecificattitudesregardingminority/majoritygroupmembershipamong teenagers. 483

Table24.7 LanguageUseamongSecondGeneration15YearOldsfromMonolingualNonSwedish HomeswhenCommunicatingwithVariousBilingualInterlocutors Languageused with Onlyormostly Swedish Onlyormostly the minority language Bothlanguages Religion SwedenhasanEvangelicLutheransocalledstatechurch,wheremostSwedishcitizensare members;in1980,only4percentwerenotmembers,althoughtherehasbeenanincreasein nonmembershipduringthelastyears.(In1976,thenumberofnonmemberswas2.8percent.) AsidefromtheSwedishstatechurch,therehavetraditionallybeenanumberofsocalledfree churches.Swedishchildrenwhoseparentsaremembersofthestatechurchautomaticallybecome members.Thosewhodonotwishtobecomemembersmustrenouncetheirmembership. TheimmigrationtoSwedenofpeoplewhoembraceotherchurchesandreligionshasresultedin religiousdiversificationinthecountry.TheRomanCatholicChurch,whichinSwedenwas graduallyreplacedbytheLutheranChurchduringthesixteenthcentury,wasreestablishedatthe endoftheeighteenthcenturywhenCatholicforeignersdomiciledinSwedenwereallowedto practicetheirreligion.Itsmemberswerefew,however;untilthe1930s,therewereonlyabout fivethousandmembers.Todaythenumberofmembersexceedsonehundredandfivethousand (SOS,1984),consistingmainlyofimmigrantsbutalsoofasubstantialnumberofSwedes.The samepatternistruefortheMosaicandOrthodoxchurches.Islam,Hinduism,andBuddhismare alsopracticedinSweden. WithintheSwedishstatechurch,therearealsoFinnishandGermancongregations.Unilingual congregationsarenottherule,however.Forexample,themembersoftheRomanCatholic ChurchofGothenburgincludeapproximatelyfiftynationalities.Themassisconductedinten differentlanguageswithinamonth'speriod(SOS,1984:126). 484 Mother 26% 68% Father 30% 61% Siblings 74% 15% Boy/girl friend 67% 15% Best friend 79% 8% "Most friends" 84% 6%

6% (N)250

9% 235

11% 212

17% 65

13% 153

10% 166

Table24.8 Immigrants'IncomeinProportiontotheIncomeforCorrespondingGroupsintheTotal Population Age Foreigncitizens Women 94 100 102 101 109 99 Naturalizedcitizensbornabroad Men 101 97 99 104 110 108 Women 98 104 106 108 115 113 Men 2024 96 2534 85 3549 84 5059 88 6064 91 1664 87 EconomicandSocialConditions

Ingeneral,inSwedenasinotherimmigrantcountries,theeconomicandsocialsituationforthe immigrantpopulationisinferiortothatofthemajoritypopulation(cf.SOS,1984:7996).The unemploymentrateishigheramongimmigrantsthanamongSwedes;immigrantstypicallywork inmanufacturingorservicebranchesandaremorefrequentlyemployedinlesswellpaidjobs thanareSwedes.ProportionallymoreimmigrantsthanSwedesworkshifthours;inaddition, immigrantsworkinenvironmentsconsideredlesshealthythanthoseofSwedes.Nonetheless,the differencesinincomebetweenimmigrantsandthemajoritypopulationaresmall,ascanbeseen fromTable24.8wheretheincomeofimmigrantsisgivenasaproportionoftheincomeforthe correspondinggroupsofthetotalpopulation(fromSOS,1984:93,basedonEkberg,1981). Inparticular,thereisadifferencebetweenmenwhoareforeigncitizensandmajoritygroup members,whereasmanywomenandimmigrantswhohavebecomenaturalizedhavelevelsof incomethatexceedthoseofcomparablegroupsamongthemajoritypopulation.Apartial explanationforthisdifferenceisthatworkinghoursarenotconsideredinthecomparison.For example,thecomparativelypositiveincomesituationforimmigrantwomenisduetothefactthat they,ontheaverage,havelongerworkinghoursthanSwedishwomen. Asregardshousingconditions,immigranthouseholds,moreoftenthanSwedishhouseholds,are consideredovercrowded;16percentversus4percent(SOS,1984:97).Thecriterionusedin Swedishstatisticsforovercrowdednessconsistsofmorethantwopersonsperroom,exluding kitchenandlivingroom.Thosewhoareconsideredovercrowdedaccordingtothiscriteriondo notnecessarily 485

haveasimilaropinionthemselves(SOS,1984:98).Statisticsshow,however,thatthereareno differencesinthestandardofdwellings,betweenimmigrantsandSwedes.Asregardssocial relationsbetweenimmigrantsandSwedes,aninterestingtrendistherateofintermarriage. Approximately50percentofimmigrantwomenand40percentofimmigrantmencohabitwith Swedes.Amongthese,84percentofthewomenand77percentofthemenaremarried.These figurescanbecomparedwiththefiguresformarriagesorcohabitationamongpersonsfromthe samecountry,consistingof45percentofthewomenand50percentofthemen(SOS,1984:99). Suchconditionsundoubtedlyhaveimportantconsequencesforthefuturemaintenanceof linguisticandculturaldiversityinthecountry.Interviewstudieshavebeencarriedoutinboth 1969and1981regardingtheattitudestowardimmigrantsamongSwedes.Themainresultwas thatthefeelingof"apprehensionof"and"dislikefor"immigrantswasmorefrequentamong olderpersons,thosewithlesseducation,andthosewhohadhadlittlecontactwithimmigrants.A comparisonbetweenthetwoinvestigationsshowed,however,thatthenegativeattitudestoward immigrantshaddecreasedduringtheperiodbetween1969and1981(Westin,1984). ThePoliticalSituation From1968to1974,publicmeasurestakenonbehalfofimmigrantsandethnicminoritieswere investigatedinthegovernmentalCommissiononImmigrantsandEthnicMinorities(SOU, 1974).TheCommission'ssuggestionsthatimmigrantsbeallowedarealopportunitytoretain theirethnicidentitywasacceptedbythegovernment,andin1975Parliamentpassedabill establishingnewguidelinesforpoliciesregardingimmigrantsandethnicminorities.Threemain objectiveswereemphasized: 1. EqualitybetweenimmigrantsandSwedes. 2. Culturalfreedomofchoiceforimmigrants. 3. CooperationandsolidaritybetweenSwedesandethnicminorities. WithregardtothegoalforequalitybetweenSwedesandimmigrants,itwassuggestedthatthe ethnicminoritiesshouldhavethesameaccesstoinformation,education,andcultureasSwedes. Inordertoachievethisgoal,itwasseenasessentialthatimmigrantsbehelpedtodevelop adequateskillsinSwedish;thedevelopmentandmaintenanceofskillsinthehomelanguagewas alsoanessentialpartofthe"equality"principle,however.Withregardtothesecondgoal,thatis, freedomofchoice,theimmigrants'righttochooseconcerningtheextenttowhichtheywishedto maintaintheirownlanguageandculturalidentityortoadoptaSwedishlanguageandcultural identitywasrecognized.Thethirdgoalemphasizestheimportanceofthedevelopmentof toleranceandcommunityof 486

spiritbetweenimmigrantsandSwedesachievedthroughincreasedinformationandeducationaimed atimprovinginterculturalunderstanding(seeSOU,1983). Asidefromtheabovementionedoverridinggoals,whichhavealsohadimportantimplicationsfor educationalpolicy(thesewillbediscussedinthenextsection),concretemeasureshavebeentaken concerningthepoliticalstatusofimmigrants.Since1976,foreigncitizensdomiciledinSwedenhave beenallowedtovoteinlocalandregionalelections,providedthatpermanentresidenceinSweden hasbeenmaintainedforatleastthreeyearspriortotheelection.Evaluationsoftheextentof participationamongimmigrantsintheelectionsof1976,1979,and1982showthatimmigrantshave participatedtoalesserdegreethanSwedes(in1982,52percentforimmigrantsversus90percent forSwedes)(SOU,1984).Nevertheless,thefigureof52percentisnotregardedasdiscouraging, consideringthatimmigrants,especiallythosewhohavenotbeeninthecountryforalongperiodof time,arefacedwithanumberofobviousdifficultiesinconnectionwithexercisingtheirrightto vote(cf.HammarandReinans,1984:60).Furthermore,thefigureof90percentvotingparticipation isextremelyhighcomparedtowhatiscommoninmanyothercountries. Thequestionofwhethervotingrightsforimmigrantsshouldbeextendedtonationalelectionshas beenconsideredbyaspecialparliamentarycommission(SOU,1984).Themajorityofthe commission(SocialDemocraticandCommunistpartymembers)suggestedthatvotingrightsbe extendedforNordiccitizensonly,whileaminority(nonsocialistpartymembers)votedforunaltered regulations.Thecommission'ssuggestionhasmetwithharshcriticismandisunlikelytobethe objectofgovernmentalproposalstotheParliament(cf.HammarandReinans,1984:62). Manyimmigrantsaremembersofvariousethnicorganizations,thenationalboardsofthese organizationsservingasinterestgroupswithregardtopoliticalquestionsconcerningimmigrants. Asidefromtheirpoliticalimportance,thelocalchaptershaveanespeciallyvitalculturalroleto play.Immigrantorganizationsareentitledtopublicfinancialsupport. BILINGUALEDUCATION GoalsandPolicies Thegeneralpoliticalgoalsmentionedabovehaveplayedanimportantroleinshapingpolicyforthe educationofimmigrants.Inthissection,wewillfocusontheeducationofimmigrantchildren.To someextent,however,theadulteducationofimmigrantswillbeconsidered,too,becausethisarea hasbeenanimportantcomponentofthegeneraleducationalpolicyforimmigrantsinSweden. Therightofimmigrantchildrentomaintainanddeveloptheirmothertongueinschoolwasfirst recognizedinSwedenin1962.Itwasnotuntilanumberofyearslater,however,thatmothertongue instructionbecamewidespreadandthat 487

itsimportanceforthechild'ssocial,emotional,andintellectualdevelopmentbegantoreceive greaterrecognition. TheCommissiononImmigrantsandEthnicMinorities(operatingfrom1968to1974),although lackingaspecificeducationalfocus,madeanumberofsuggestionsthatweredirectlyrelatedtothe educationofminoritychildren.Basedonresearchfindingsconcerninglanguagedevelopmentand bilingualismandtheimportanceofthemothertongueforthechild'semotionalandintellectual developmentaswellasforthedevelopmentofaharmoniousrelationshipbetweenparentandchild, thegoalfortheeducationofminoritychildrenshouldbetopromoteactivebilingualism. OnrecommendationfromtheCommission,aspecialworkinggroupwasformedwithinthe DepartmentofEducationtoinvestigateissuesrelatedtotheeducationofminoritychildren.This groupsuggestedthatthegeneralpoliticalgoalsofequality,freedomofchoice,andcooperationand solidarityshouldalsobeappliedtotheeducationalsphereand,inagreementwithrecommendations fromtheCommission,thataspecialgoalwithregardtotheeducationofimmigrantchildrenshould betodevelopactivebilingualism(SOU,1983).Thegovernmentacceptedthemajorityofthe workinggroup'ssuggestions,resultinginpassageoftheHomeLanguageReformwhichwentinto effectin1977.TheHomeLanguageReformmakesittheresponsibilityofthemunicipalitiesto providehomelanguageinstructionforallstudentswhodesireitandforwhomthehomelanguage representsalivingelementinthechild'shomeenvironment.Homelanguageinstructionincludes bothinstructioninthehomelanguageperseandtutoringinsubjectmatterthroughthemediumof themothertongue.Statesubsidiesareprovidedforthisinstruction.Inaddition,theHomeLanguage ReformstipulatesthatallstudentsinneedofsupportteachinginSwedishbeallowedtoreceivethis information. SincetheenactmentoftheHomeLanguageReform,thespecialneedsofimmigrantchildrenhave beengivenincreasingattention.Educationalgoalsforimmigrantchildrenaredescribedinthe centrallyframedcurriculumforprimaryschooleducationnowinforce(Lgr,1980).Tworecent governmentcommissionshaveinvestigatedthesituationofimmigrantchildren:onewithregardto childrenofpreschoolage(SOU,1982)andtheotherwithregardtothesituationforlanguageand culturalmaintenanceamongimmigrantchildreninprimaryandsecondaryschool(SOU,1983). Withregardtoadults,afunctionalcommandofSwedishandknowledgeoftheSwedishsocietyhas beenrecognizedasnecessaryforcarryingoutthegeneralpoliticalgoalswithregardtoimmigrants( SOU,1974).Tothisend,Swedishlanguageinstructionhasbeenofferedtoadultimmigrantsasone ofthemostimportantsocietaltoolsforenhancingtheimmigrants'participationatalllevelsof Swedishsociety(cf.SO,1979;Hammar,1979). OrganizationalForms Themunicipalitiesaregivenagreatdealoffreedomwithregardtotheorganizationalformsfor instructioninthehomelanguage,andanumberofmodels 488

 havebeendeveloped.Thishasalsoresultedfromthefactthatthenumberofimmigrantchildren, theiragesandethnicidentity,parentalpreferences,andtheavailabilityofbilingualstaffhave variedconsiderablyinthelocalmunicipalities.Beforedescribingthevariousmodels,the Swedisheducationalsystemasawholewillbebrieflydescribed. TheeducationalsysteminSwedencomprisesacompulsory,comprehensivenineyearschool,an integrateduppersecondaryschooldesignedtoaccommodateallsixteenyearolds,asystemof municipaladulteducation,andahighereducationsystem,whichinprinciple,isopento everyonewithqualificationscorrespondingtotwoyears'uppersecondaryschooling(Swedish Institute,1984).Inaddition,allchildrenareentitledtopreschooleducationforatleastoneyear beforebeginningcompulsoryschoolingatageseven.Preschools,however,arepartofthepublic childcareprogramsandareadministeredseparatelyfromtheregularschoolsystembythe NationalBoardofHealthandWelfare.Guidelinesconcerningboththepreschoolandschool programsarehighlycentralizedinSweden,resultingintheestablishmentofuniformeducational standardsthroughoutthecountry. PreschoolProgramsforImmigrantChildren.Immigrantchildren,aswellasLappand FinnishspeakingchildreninnorthernSwedenenrolledintheSwedishpreschoolsystem,are offeredtheopportunitytoreceivesupportinthehomelanguageiftheydesiresuchinstruction andifthislanguageconstitutesalivingelementinthehomeenvironment.Since1977,state subsidieshavebeenprovidedforallsixyearolds,andsince1979,forallfiveyearolds.A numberoforganizationalmodelshaveresulted.Theseincludemothertonguegroups(inwhich lessonsinSwedishmayalsobegivenbyperipateticteachers),combinedgroupsconsistingof approximately50percentimmigrantchildrenfromonelanguagegroupand50percentSwedish speakingchildren,andplacementofthechildinaregularSwedishgroupwithhomelanguage trainingbeingprovidedbyaperipateticteacherapproximatelyfourhoursperweek.Permanent employmentofbilingualstaffispreferredovertheuseofperipateticteachersbecauseitprovides theopportunityforintegratinglanguagelearningintheregularprogram.Althoughfew provisionsaremadeforimmigrantchildrencaredforathomebytheirparents,insome municipalitiesopenpreschoolsarealsoorganizedwhichparentscanattendwiththeiryoung childrenandwhichhavespecificopenhoursforcertainlanguagegroups. AttheNewYear,1982,17,300childrenwithahomelanguageotherthanSwedishwereenrolled inSwedishpreschools,comprising7.4percentofthetotalenrollment.Approximately60percent receivedsomeformofhomelanguagetraining.Thehighestpercentageofthosereceivinghome languageinstructionwerefiveandsixyearolds,forwhomstatesubsidiesareavailable. Quantitativelyspeaking,homelanguagetrainingisbestprovidedforchildrenwhospeak Spanish,Finnish,Turkish,andGreek.Theprovisionofhomelanguagetrainingforchildren belongingtooneofthesmallerminoritygroupsismoreproblematic(StatisticsSweden,1983). Statisticsconcerningthespecifictypeofhomelanguageinstructionbeing 489

providedarenotavailableforyearslaterthan1980.Atthattime,homelanguagegroupsnumbered 365intheentirecountry(SOU,1982).Approximately60percentofthesegroupswereforFinnish speakingchildren.Thismeantthatapproximately40percentofthechildrenparticipatinginhome languageinstructionattendedhomelanguagegroups,theremainderbeingplacedinintegrated groupsorinregularSwedishgroups,withhomelanguageinstructionbeinggivenbyaperipatetic teacher(thelatterformbeingfarmorecommon). PrimaryandSecondaryEducationProgramsforImmigrantChildren.Thewayinwhich instructionforprimaryschoolimmigrantchildrenisorganizedinSwedenhastakenanumberof forms.Fourmainorganizationalmodelsareused(StatisticsSweden,1983). MostimmigrantchildrenareplacedinordinarySwedishclassesfromwhichtheymaybe temporarily"pulledout"forhomelanguageinstructionand/orSwedishasasecondlanguage instruction.Asecondmodelconsistsofintegratedclassesconsistingofapproximately50percent Swedishspeakingchildrenand50percentimmigrantchildrenfromthesamelanguagebackground. Theimmigrantchildrenaretaughtforpartofthetimeintheirowngroupandpartofthetime togetherwiththeirSwedishclassmates.TheamountofSwedishuseincreasessuccessivelyfrom gradesonetothree,andoftenthechildrenareplacedinaregularSwedishclassatthebeginningof thefourthgrade. Inthesocalledhomelanguageclass,thethirdmodel,allinstruction,atleastinitially,iscarriedout throughthemediumofthehomelanguage.Swedishasasecondlanguageisintroducedduringthe secondorthirdgrades.TheamountofSwedishusedininstructionincreasessuccessivelyfrom gradesonetosixandisintroducedatthelatestingradefour(seeVirta,1983).Bygradesix, instructioniscarriedoutequallyinbothlanguages.Althoughtechnicallyspeakinghomelanguage classesdonotexistbeyondthesixthgrade,butsinceclassesfromearliergradesaresometimeskept intactathighergradelevels,thisallowsforthecontinuationofsomehomelanguageinstruction evenatthejuniorhighschoollevel.Finally,afourthmodelconsistsofpreparatoryclassesinwhich studentsfromavarietyoflanguagebackgroundsareinstructedtogetheronatemporarybasis(see below).Itshouldberecognized,however,thattheabovedescriptionrepresents"theideal"andthat inrealityprogramswithinanyparticularmodeltypecanvaryconsiderably(cf.Kllstrom,1982). TheCentralBureauofStatisticshascarriedoutannualsurveysofimmigrantpupilsandimmigrant instructionincompulsorycomprehensiveschoolssince1974.Inthefalltermof1982,992,700 childrenwereattendingmunicipalcompulsoryschoolsinSweden.Ofthese,86,700,or8.7percent, hadahomelanguageotherthanSwedish.Thispercentagehasbeenrelativelystablesince1979. Approximately43percentofprimaryschoolimmigrantchildrenhadFinnishasamothertongue.In uppersecondaryschoolapproximately4.9percentoftheenrolledchildrenhadahomelanguage otherthanSwedish. Thepercentageofchildrenparticipatinginsomeformofhomelanguageinstructioninprimary schoolwasapproximately65percentandinsecondary 490

schoolapproximately41percent(StatisticsSweden,1983).Thenumberofhomelanguageclasses inprimaryschoolduringtheschoolyear19821983was561,whichrepresentedadecreaseof39 fromthepreviousyear.SeventyeightpercentoftheseclasseswereforFinnishspeakingchildren. Duringthesameperiod,therewere298integratedclassesand86preparatoryclasses(Statistiska meddelanden,1983).Accordingtotheabovesource,approximately16percentofthechildren participatinginhomelanguageinstructionreceivedthisinstructionintheformofhomelanguage classes.Virta(1983),however,basedonstatisticsfromastudybytheNationalBoardofEducation, placesthisfigureatonly9percent.Nevertheless,thesefiguresshowthatthemajorityofimmigrant childrenarenotattendinganytypeofbilingualclassandareplacedinregularSwedishclasses.As Kllstrm(1982),Virta(1983),andothershavepointedout,theongoingdebateinSweden concerningthebenefitsofhomelanguageversusintegratedclassesforimmigrantchildrenhas, unfortunately,divertedattentionfromthisgroup. SwedishInstruction.WithregardtospecialinstructioninSwedishforimmigrantpupils,although muchlessemphasishasbeenplacedonthiscomponentthanonthehomelanguagecomponentin thepublicdebateconcerningtheeducationofimmigrantchildren(researcherssuchasTingbjrn [1981]andPaulston[1983]speakofadownrightneglectinthisarea),supportiveSwedishlessons havebeengivensince1966. Incompulsoryschool,43,434childrenreceivedsupportiveSwedishlessonsin1982;thiswas50 percentofallpupilswithhomelanguageotherthanSwedish(StatisticsSweden,1983:41).Only thosechildrenwhoarejudgedbytheschooltobeinneedofsupportiveSwedishlessonsareentitled toreceivethisinstruction.Oneoftheproblemsinprovidingthiseducationisthatinsomeareas wheretheproportionofimmigrantchildrenishigh,resourcesarenotadequatetomeettheneeds (Ekstrm,1983:34).Thus,59percentwerejudgedinneedofsupportiveSwedishlessonsin1982 (StatisticsSweden,1983:38)ascomparedtothe50percentwhoactuallyreceivedthem.Thefigures foruppersecondaryschoolfor1981asregardssupportiveteachingareasfollows:26percent requiredsupport,whileonlyabout15percentreceivedsuchinstruction(StatisticsSweden, 1983:6162). InadditiontothesupportiveSwedishinstruction,socalledpreparatoryclasseswithpupilsfromone ormorelanguagebackgroundscanbesetupasatemporaryarrangementinschoolswithalarge numberofimmigrantchildren.Theaimofsuchclassesistointroducerecentimmigrantstothe Swedishschooland,inparticular,topreparethepupilsforsubjectmatterinstructioninSwedish. Inordertofacilitatethetransitionfromcompulsoryschooltouppersecondaryschool,especiallyfor thoseimmigrantchildrenwhohavearrivedjustpriortoentryintouppersecondaryschool,socalled introductorycourseshavebeendeveloped(S,1977).EmphasisisonSwedishasasecond language,butothersubjectsrelevanttopreparationforsecondaryschoolstudiesarealsoincluded. AdultEducation.Since1965,adultimmigrantshavebeenofferedSwedish 491

coursesfreeofcharge.Themostreliablestatisticsrelatingtoparticipationinthesecoursesarebased onteachinghoursratherthannumberofparticipants.Thesestatisticsshowasteepincreaseinthe 1970s,followedbyaslightdecreaseinthe1980sinthenumberofteachinghours:100,000hoursin 196566;780,000in197172(cf.Hammar,1979);and675,000in198182(StatisticsSweden, 1983:84). In1973,thesocalledSwedishLessonsActwasenforced,statingthatimmigrantemployeeswithout basicknowledgeofSwedishwereentitledto240hours(insomecases160hours)ofSwedish instructionduringpaidworkinghours.Inotherwords,someofthecostsforthisstatutoryeducation wereimposedontheemployer.Forvariousreasons,theActhasbeenmuchlessofa'successthan expected.Itisevenconsideredashavinghadtheeffectofexcludingimmigrantsfromemployment, thuscontributingtoahigherpercentageofunemploymentamongimmigrantswithoutbasic knowledgeofSwedish(SOU,1981a). AsubstantialportionofthetotalamountofSwedishinstructionhasbeenarrangedbystate approvedadulteducationassociations,whichwerealsothefirsttoorganizethistypeofeducation. Beginningin1971,Swedishinstructionhasalsobeengivenwithintheframeworkoflabormarket trainingforunemployedimmigrants(thesocalledAMUcourses).TheproportionofSwedish instructionwithinAMUhasbeenmuchlargerthanwasexpectedintheearly1970s,adevelopment thatshouldbeseeninrelationtothegeneralunemploymentsituationforimmigrantsandthe problemsrelatedtotheSwedishLessonsActmentionedabove. Tocompletethepicture,itshouldalsobementionedthatSwedishinstructionisgivenatrefugee receptioncentersatsocalledfolkhighschoolsandwithintheuniversitysystem,forforeign students. Suggestionsconcerningthefutureorganizationforadultimmigrantshavebeenpresentedbya parliamentarycommissiononSwedishforImmigrants,theSFICommission(SOU,1981aandb). In1984,agovernmentbillontheissuewaspresentedtotheParliament.Thefinalparliamentary decisioninvolvesimportantchangesinrelationtothepresentsituationamongotherareasthatplace greaterresponsibilityonthelocalmunicipalities.Inaddition,centrallyframedsyllabusesandother guidelines,forexample,concerningteachertrainingrequirements,havebeensuggested. Apartfromlanguageinstruction,adultimmigrantswhoareilliterateorlackbasicknowledgein certainsubjects,forexample,mathematics,areofferedbasiceducationintheseareasintheso calledGRUNDVUXprogram.ThiseducationalformisalsoofferedtoSwedeswhoseknowledgeof reading,writing,and/ormathematicsisratedasbelowtheaverageforpupilscompletinggradefour ofthecompulsoryschool.ThenumberofparticipantsinGRUNDVUXtotaled10,181inMarch 1982,63percentofwhomwereimmigrants(StatisticsSweden,1983:95).Atotalof30percentof theimmigrantpupilsweretaughtintheirmothertonguetosomeextent(StatisticsSweden, 1983:95). Asmentionedabove,Swedishinstructionforadultsisseenasoneofthemajor 492

toolsinattainingtheobjectivesofSweden'sofficialpolicywithregardtoimmigrantsandethnic minorities,inparticulartheprincipleofequalitybetweenimmigrantsandSwedes.Therelation betweenimmigrants'proficiencyinSwedishandgenerallivingconditionshasbeeninvestigated inastudybyI.MunicioandT.MeisaariPolsa(1980).TeacherTraining.Teachertraining programsforhomelanguageteacherswereinitiatedin1977.Thetrainingconsistsofatwoyear program.Sofar,onlyafewlanguageshavebeeninvolved,andthenumberofstudentshasbeen smallinrelationtotheneeds.Anumberofthoseemployedashomelanguageteachers,however, alreadyhaveteachertrainingfromtheircountriesoforigin.Althougheffortshavethusbeen madetoemploytrainedteachers,themajorityofthepresenthomelanguageteachersdonothave adequateteachertraining.In1981,thenumberofhomelanguageteacherstotalledapproximately fourthousand(StatisticsSweden,1983:102).AsregardsteachersofSwedishasasecond language,fullteachertrainingprogramswerebegunaslateas1983.Thisteachertrainingaims specificallyatsupplyingupperprimaryschoolsandsecondaryschoolswithteachers.In1984, specialpositionsandeligibilityconditionswereestablishedforteachersofSwedishasasecond languageattheselevels.Similarmeasureshavenotyetbeentakenconcerningteachersof childrenatgradesonethroughsix.Asregardsteachersinadulteducation,thesituationissimilar inthatnospecificteachertrainingrequirementshavebeenestablishedexceptinoneofthe organizationalformsforsuchteaching,theAMUcourses(seeabove).Thenumberofteachersof Swedishasasecondlanguage,includingalleducationallevels,isestimatedatapproximately seventyfivehundred(Tingbjrn,1983:16).Althoughtherehasbeennoregularteachingtraining forthoseteachersnowinthefield,alargenumberhaveneverthelessfolloweduniversitycourses inSwedishasasecondlanguage,whichbeganin1973.Althoughthesecoursesaregivenoutside theregularteachertrainingprogram,theyare,bothquantitativelyandqualitatively,quiteonapar withothersubjectsleadinguptodegreesintheteachingprofession(Hammarberg,1981). ProblemsandSuggestedSolutions Problemsandsuggestedsolutionsrelatedtotheeducationofminoritychildrenhavebeen discussed,inamongothersources,inthereportsfromthetwogovernmentalcommissions investigatingthesituationsforpreschoolandprimarysecondaryschoolimmigrantchildren(see SOU,1982;SOU,1983;seealsoSOS,1984).Problemsalsohavebeenconsideredinconnection withseveralinvestigationsoftheactualimplementationofeducationalreformsamongspecific interestgroupsoratvariouslevelsoftheeducationalsystem: Preschool:Municio(1983). Comprehensiveschool:Ekstrm(1982);Enstrm(1982);EnstrmandTingbjrn(1982); Kllstrm(1982). 493

Majorareasdiscussedincludeinformationneeds,teachertraining,and organizationalissues. Withregardtoinformationneeds,despitegreatstridesmadeinthisareainthepast decade,thereremainsalackofunderstandingamongcertaingroupsconcerningthe goalsofthehomelanguageprogramand,consequently,oftheneedforhome languageinstruction.Asaresult,inappropriatelanguageplacementsaresometimes madeinpreschoolorschoolprograms,orprogramsarenotdevelopedforimmigrant childrenatlocallevels.Thereisaneedforincreasedattentiontoimmigrantissues inbasicandinserviceeducationforvariouspersonnelcategorieswhoworkdirectly withimmigrantchildrenandfamilies.Parentsalsoneedmoreinformation;many parentslackanunderstandingandknowledgeofthebasicgoalsandphilosophiesof thedifferentbilingualeducationmodelsaswellasoftheirownroleindeveloping activebilingualisminthehome. AnotherprobleminSweden,asinmanycountries,concernsteachertraining. Although,aswasmentionedearlier,educationalprogramshavebeendevelopedfor teachersatvariousstagesoftheeducationalsystem,manyproblemsremain,for example,concerningtherecruitmentofqualifiedhomelanguageteachercandidates, especiallyatthepreschoollevel,theavailabilityofteachersincertainpartsofthe countryaswellasforcertainlanguagegroups,thelackoftrainingamongmany teachersalreadyemployedinthefield,andtheneedtoupdateexistingeducational programsasnewexperiencesemergefromthefield.Thevariouscommissions investigatingtheseareashavemadeanumberofsuggestions,forexample,better statisticssothatmoreaccurateplanningforthenumberofteachersneededinthe futurecanbecarriedout.Especiallyworthmentioningistherecentrecognitionof theneedtoincludeamulticulturalcomponentintheeducationofallteachersinthe future,bothSwedishandhomelanguage,aswellasagreateremphasisonteacher trainingintheareaofSwedishasasecondlanguage. Withregardtoorganizationalissues,manypreschoolchildrenreceivehome languageinstructionforonlyfourhoursperweek.Formany,thisinstructionbegins toolate,thatis,notuntilthechildisfiveorsix.This,inadditiontothedifficult workingsituationforhomelanguageteachersworkingonaperipateticbasis,hasled torecommendationsconcerningtheplacementofbilingualpreschoolchildrenin homelanguageorintegratedgroupswheneverpossible.Afurthersuggestionmade bythecommissioninvestigatingthepreschoolareawasthatallimmigrantchildren beallowedtwoyears'homelanguagetrainingduringpreschoolwhichcouldbegin atanystage.Thisisseenasanimprovementfromwaitinguntilthechildisfiveor six.Whetherornotthisrecommendationwillbeadoptedbythegovernmentis unclearatpresent. 494

Upper secondary school: Edbergand Holmegaard (1982). Home language teachers: Enstrm (1984). Introductory courses: Edberg, Hagelin,and Holmegaard (1980).

Inmanysituationsinwhichchildrenreceivehomelanguageinstruction,theymustbepulledoutof theirregularclassesinordertoreceivethisinstruction;asaresultmanychildrenchoosenotto participateintheprogram.Ithasbeensuggestedthatchildrenbeallowedtoreceivehomelanguage instructionafterschoolhoursiftheydesireit. AremainingproblemconcernsthemanychildrenwhoaremainstreamedinSwedishclasses,many ofwhombelongtoverysmalllanguagegroupsandwho,thus,maynotbeabletoreceivehome languagelessons.AlthoughrecommendationshavebeenmadeconcerningwaystohelpSwedish teachersincorporatetheculturesofimmigrantpupilsintheirclassrooms,onewouldalsohopeto seemoreattentionplacedonlanguagerelatedissuesinthefuture.Throughsuchmeansas developingparallelcurricularmaterialsortheuseofparentsorparaprofessionalswhospeakthe homelanguageintheclassroom,evenimmigrantchildrenwhocomefromthe"smaller"language groupscouldbehelpedtodeveloptheirmothertongue. Increasedrecognitionhasalsobeengiventotheneedforsometypeoflongrange"linguistic planning"foreachchild.Toooftenimmigrantchildrenareplacedinhomelanguagegroupsatthe preschoollevelforwhomnofollowupplacementisavailableinprimaryschool.Ifsuchisthecase, itmaybeimportanttointroduceSwedishasasecondlanguageatthepreschoollevel.Thereisalsoa needforthedevelopmentofsometypeoflanguageassessmentprograminconjunctionwiththis linguisticplanning. Finally,problemsrelatedtothelackofcurriculummaterialshaveledtothesuggestionthata nationalcenterforthedevelopmentofcurriculummaterialsbeestablished. RESEARCH Beforedescribingresultswithregardtoevaluationofdifferenttypesofbilingualeducation programsatthepreschoolandprimaryandsecondaryschoollevels,abriefhistoryofthedebate concerningtheroleofthemothertongueintheeducationofimmigrantchildrenwillbegiven. Swedenhastakenaratheruniquepositionwithregardtomothertongueteaching,whichhashad importantimplicationsforresearchandpolicymakingonaninternationallevel. TheSwedishDebate TheSwedishdebateontheroleofthemothertongueintheeducationofimmigrantchildrencanbe tracedbacktotheworkofN.E.Hansegrd(1968)whodescribedthelanguagesituationfor FinnishspeakingchildrenintheTorneValley.AccordingtoHansegrd,theearlyintroductionof Swedishintheschoolingofthesechildrenoftenledtopoorknowledgeofboththefirstandsecond languages;thus,theterm"doublesemilingualism"wasintroduced.Hansegrd(1968)emphasized theroleofthemothertongueinthechild'scommunicative, 495

intellectual,andemotionaldevelopment,suggestingthatthechild'searlyschoolexperiencesbe carriedoutinthislanguage. Althoughthenotionof"semilingualism"hasplayedanimportantroleindrawingattentiontothe situationofimmigrantchildren,asespeciallyevidentintheworkofT.SkutnabbKangas(e.g., 1981),muchcriticismhasbeendirectedtowardtheconceptassuchaswellastowarditsuse.B. Loman(1974),oneofthefirstresearcherstoinvestigatesemilingualism,foundnoempirical supportofit.Hansegrd'sresultswerecriticizedfortheirlackofconsiderationofsocialfactors. Whensocialfactorswerecontrolledfor,nodifferencesinSwedishskillswerefoundbetween residentsoftheTorneValleyandthoseinotherareasofSweden(Loman,1974).Hansegrd(1977), however,claimsthattheempiricalresearchundertakenbyLomaninvestigatesonlysuperficial, formalaspectsoflanguage,disregardingtheimportantintellectualandemotionalfunctions.Hethus contendsthattheexistenceofsemilingualismisbynomeansdisprovedbyLoman'sinvestigations. Morerecentlyotherlinguistshavealsocriticizedtheuseoftheconceptforitslackofempirical support,amongotherreasons(Wande1977;Stroud1978;Oksaar1980;hman1981;Hyltenstam andStroud1982).Wande(1977)whohimselfgrewupintheTorneValley,haspointedoutthat severalinterpretationsarepossibleoftheoriginaldataonwhichHansegrdbasedhisassumptions; alsosuggestedwastheneedforaninterpretationofthedatainawiderlinguisticand societal/culturalperspectivethanthatoriginallytaken.Stroud(1978)hascarriedoutananalysisof theconceptasatheoreticalconstruct,suggestingthattherearethreesensesinwhichthenotionof semilingualismcanpotentiallybeuseddependingonthestrengthofthelanguagethought relationshipwhichisassumed.Onereasonforthesomewhatvaguenatureofthediscussions surroundingthesemilingualismconceptisthusthatoneoranotheroftheseinterpretationsoftenis implicitlyassumedbyvariouswriterswithouttheiralwaysbeingconsciousofthisfact.Stroudalso suggeststhatanumberofothertacittheoreticalassumptionsuponwhichtheconceptisbasedare eitherquestionableordifficulttosettle. hman(1981)discussesthediffusionoftheconceptinsocietyandstronglyurgesproponentsofthe termtoconsiderseriouslythenegativeconsequencesithashadforimmigrantchildrenbothinterms oflowselfesteemanddecreasedexpectationsfromthewiderenvironment.HyltenstamandStroud( 1982)pointoutthenegativeconnotationswhichthenotionsemilingualism,aswellasotherterms suchas"linguisticfacade,"alsousedtodescribethespeechofimmigrantchildren,havehad.As theseauthorssuggest,theuseofsuchnegativelyloadedlabelscanoftenhavecertainselffulfilling effects(RosenthalandJacobson,1968).Moreover,thetermsemilingualismismisleading,for,by focusingonlinguisticissues,ithasdivertedattentionfromtheclusteroffactorsthatcontributeto immigrantchildren'spoorschoolachievementwhich,inadditiontolinguisticfactors,alsoinvolves social,cultural,cognitive,andemotionalfactors(HyltenstamandStroud,1982).Theseauthors, Paulston(1983)andothers,havethusrecommendedthatthetermsemilingualismnolongerbe used. 496

Thetermsemilingualism,withitsheavyemphasisonthenecessityofdevelopingmothertongue skills,hasoftenbeenamajorfactorineducationalandpoliticalargumentsformothertongue classes.Actualresearchconcerningtheeffectsofmothertongueinstruction,however,wasnot initiateduntilthe1970s. EspeciallyimportantisToukomaa'sstudyofFinnishspeakingchildrenintwoSwedishcities(see SkutnabbKangasandToukomaa,1976).Amongotherfindings,theresultsshowedthatchildren whohadimmigratedtoSwedenatagetenlearnedSwedishmoreeasilythanthosewhohad immigratedatageseventoeight.Theauthors,therefore,suggestedthatitwasimportanttoallowthe mothertonguetodevelopto"anabstractlevel"beforeintroducingSwedish.Resultsconcerningthe importanceofthemothertonguewerealsosupportedbyCanadianresearchfindingsconcerningthe developmentalinterdependencehypothesis(seeCummins,1979),thatis,thatthelevelofL2 competencewhichabilingualchildattainsispartiallyafunctionofthecompetencedevelopedinLl atthetimeL2exposurebegins. Ontheotherhand,anumberofresearchersinSwedenandelsewherehavestronglycriticizedthe ideathatthechildmustfirstlearnthemothertongue"toanabstractlevel"beforethesecond languageisintroduced.P.OuvinenBirgerstamandE.Wigforss(1978)attackP.Toukomaa'sresults (seeSkutnabbKangasandToukomaa,1976)onmethodologicalgrounds.M.Pienemann(1977) arguesthatresultsfromchildrenwhohaveimmigratedatvariousagescannotbegeneralizedto immigrantchildrenbornwithinacountry,forthelearningconditionsforthetwogroupsare inherentlydifferent.L.H.Ekstrand,inanumberofliteraturesurveys(see,e.g.,1981aandb),has foundnosupportforthe"mothertonguehypothesis"andsuggeststhatchildrencaneasilylearntwo languagesduringearlychildhood.Withregardtothesuperiorperformancesoftheolderlearnersin Toukomaa'sstudy(seeabove),thiscouldaswellbeduetoanagefactorastoacausalrelationship betweenthetwolanguages(Ekstrand,1979). J.Allwood,M.MacDowall,andS.Strmqvist(1982),repeatingargumentsthathavebeen presentedearlierinthedebate,havesuggestedanumberoffactorsexplainingthelackofconsensus amongresearcherswithregardtotheeducationofimmigrantchildren.First,therehasbeenrather littlerecentbasicresearchinthearea,especiallyconcerningthetheoreticalconceptsonwhichthe debaterests.Forexample,researchershavehadverydifferentpointsofdeparturewithregardtothe relationshipbetweenlanguage,thought,andemotionwhichhasledtoconfusioninthepractical context(seealsoStroud,1978).Definitionofsomeofthedependentvariablesinvolved,suchas "activebilingualism,"isfraughtwithdifficulties,asistheconstructionofteststhatmeasurethose variables.Otherfactorssuggestedconcernwithsuchphenomenaasresearchers'viewsabout assimilationversusculturalandlinguisticpluralism,aswellashowtheyviewtheprocessof secondlanguagelearning. IfoneholdsthebeliefthatSwedishcanbeeasilylearnedthroughmereexposureinthenatural environment,homelanguagemodelsarenotseenasimpedingthechild'sacquisitionofSwedish. Recently,however,moreattentionhas 497

beenpaidtothecomplexityofthesecondlanguageacquisitionprocessand,consequently,tothe needtoprovideexposuretothesecondlanguageinavarietyofcontexts.Finally,awidevarietyof methodshavebeenusedinthevariousresearchstudies.Insomecases,empiricalstudieshavebeen carriedout,whereasinothercasesargumentshavebeenbasedonsecondarysourcessuchas literaturesurveys. BilingualEducationatthePreschoolLevel ResearchprojectsdealingwithbilingualeducationatthepreschoollevelaresummarizedinSOU (1982).MostoftheprojectshavebeeninitiatedbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfarein answertotheenormousneedforinformationinthelocalmunicipalitieswithregardtothe developmentofdaycareformsforpreschoolimmigrantchildren. Inordertoincreaseknowledgeconcerningwaysoforganizingprograms,apilotscheme administeredbytheNationalBoardofHealthandWelfarewascarriedoutbetween1971and1973 ineighteenmunicipalities.Thestudyfocusedonchildreninkindergartengroups,thatis,sixyear olds.Initially,differentwaysoforganizingtraininginSwedishwerestudied.Thefindingsshowed thatthedesiredresultswithregardtoSwedishwerenotachievedandthatgreateremphasisshould beplacedonthedevelopmentofthechildren'smothertongue.Thepermanentemploymentof bilingualstaffinthegroupswasalsosuggestedasbeingimportantbothforthechildren'slanguage developmentandforensuringalinkbetweenthepreschoolandhome. AstudyofsixyearoldsenrolledintwoorganizationalmodelswascarriedoutbyBIStockfelt Hoatson(1978).Inonemodel,childrenfromseveralimmigrantgroupswereplacedtogetherwith Swedishchildren,andtheimmigrantchildrenreceivedhomelanguagetrainingbyaperipatetic teacher.ThesecondgroupconsistedofFinnishspeakingchildrentaughtbyabilingualteacher. ObservationsinthetwogroupsshowedthattheFinnishspeakinggroupfunctionedbetter,asinthe mixedgroupaggressivebehaviorfrequentlyoccurredwhenthechildrencouldnotmakethemselves understood.Thetestresultsshowedanormaldevelopmentinnonverbaltests.Thechildren performedatbelowaveragelevelinverbaltests,however,andtherewerenosignificantdifferences betweenchildrenfromthetwogroups.Resultsfromteacherratingsandinterviewswithparentsalso showedthatadultsoftenoverratedthechildrenwithregardtotheirlanguageabilities. Theabovestudiesinvolvedsixyearoldchildren;astudyofyoungerimmigrantchildreninaday caresettingwascarriedoutbyG.SchylBjurman(1975).Finnishchildrenbetweentheagesofthree andsevenplacedinSwedishspeakinggroupsandreceivinghomelanguagetrainingsixhoursper weekwerestudied.Theresultsfromlanguagetestingofthechildrenshowedtheeffectsofthe programtobepositive,consideringthelimitednumberofhoursperweekthechildrenreceived homelanguagetraining.Behavioralobservationsofthegroups 498

supportedtheneedfororganizationalmethodsinwhichchildrenofsimilaragesandlanguage backgroundsareplacedtogetheringroupsstaffedbybilingualteachers. AprojectstudyingLatinAmericanchildren(seeMalmsocialfrvaltning,1980)wasoneofthefew studiesemployingacontrolgroup.ThestudyinvolvedfortyfivechildrenplacedinfourSwedish groups.LatinAmericanpersonnelwerealsoemployedinthegroups.Thecontrolgroupconsistedof LatinAmericanchildrenplacedinSwedishspeakinggroupsforwhomnospecialmeasureshad beentakenwithregardtoenhancingthechildren'slinguisticandculturaldevelopment.Language testingofthechildrenshowedthattheprojectchildrenperformedbetterthanthecontrolgroup childreninbothlanguages. G.Svensson(1979)studiedthesituationofveryyoungimmigrantchildren(agesixmonthstothree years)whenplacedinanenvironmentinwhichtheydidnothaveaccesstopersonnelorother childrenwhounderstoodtheirlanguage.Thisageperiodappearedtobeespeciallycriticalwith regardtoalanguageswitch.Thisissupportedbyotherfindings(seeGardell,1978;Smith,1935). Svenssonsuggeststheplacementofyoungimmigrantchildrenineitherhomelanguageorintegrated groupswheneverpossible. Recentstudieshavefocusednotonlyonthedifferentbilingualmodelsthemselvesbutalsoon factorsinfluencingthefunctioningofthemodelsandonthepreschoolasalanguagelearning environmentforimmigrantchildren.K.Naucler(1983)carriedoutaquestionnairestudyinthirty twomunicipalitiesaswellasapilotstudyconsistingofobservationsintwentyfivepreschools.The preschoolswereselectedinordertorepresentavarietyofmodelshomelanguage,integrated, mainstreamSwedishwithhomelanguagetrainingprovidedbyaperipateticteacher.Thefocuswas onhowthetwolanguageswereusedintheprogramandonwhatfactorssteeredlanguagechoice. Theresultsshowedagreatvariationevenwithinthesamemodeltypewithregardtohowmuch homelanguageandSwedishwerebeingused.Possiblythemostimportantfactorwaseducationof staff.IncaseswherebothbilingualandSwedishstaffwereemployedandwhereSwedishpersonnel hadhighereducation,thelanguageofthegroupcouldbeSwedisheveningroupswhereallthe childrensharedalanguageotherthanSwedish.Naucler(1983)suggestedtheimportanceofthe prestigeandstatusoftheminoritylanguageinthepreschoolandsociety,attitudesofbilingualand Swedishteacherstowardthemajorityandminoritygroups,andtheconsciousnesswithwhichgoals andmethodswithregardtotheuseofthetwolanguageswithintheprogramhadbeenestablished andwerebeingcarriedout. Furtherstudieshavefocusedonthelanguagelearningmilieuinthepreschool.Anderssonand Naucler(1984)andNaucler(1984)intensivelystudiedthelanguageenvironmentinabilingual preschoolforthirteenthreetosixyearoldswherefourofthechildrenwerenativeSwedish speakersandtheremainderhadSpanishasamothertongue.InAnderssonandNaucler(1984), interactionalpatternsbetweenchildrenandadultswerestudiedinrelationtotheireffectson 499

thedevelopmentofchildren'scommunicativeskills.Largeindividualdifferenceswerefoundamong adultswithregardtothewaysinwhichtheycommunicatedwithchildren,andfactorswereisolated whichwerefelttobeespeciallypositiveinfosteringchildren'scommunicativedevelopment. Naucler(1984)focusedontheuseofSpanishandSwedishinthepreschool.Despiteattemptsto regulatelanguageusebymeansofaoneperson:onelanguagestrategy(thatis,personneleachof whomuseshisorhernativelanguageonlywheninteractingwiththechildrenandassociating certainactivitieswithspecificlanguages),itwasfounddifficulttomaintaintheuseofSpanish,the minoritylanguage.Approximately75percentofalllanguageactivitieswerecarriedoutinSwedish. Onereasonforthissituation,asNauclerpointedout,wasthatSwedishwasthecommonlanguageof communication(i.e.,theSwedishspeakingchildrenwerenotexpectedtolearnSpanish).Other psychologicalandcommunicativefactorsalsoservedtobreakdowntheaboveprinciplesconcerning languageuse. Studiessuchastheaboveareextremelyimportantinsheddinglightonthelanguagelearning environmentofthepreschoolandonfactorsthatcanmediatetheeffectsofvariousorganizational models. Finally,L.Amberg(1984a)carriedoutanevaluationofmothertongueplaygroupsformothersand toddlersmeetingonceaweek.Theresultsindicatedthatthebenefitsofthegroupweremorerelated tothesocioaffectiveaspectsofbilingualismthanthelinguisticones,owingtothefrequencywith whichthegroupmet.However,thegroupswerefelttohaveanimportantsupportfunctionfor parentsraisingtheirchildrenbilingually. Conclusions.AshasbeenpointedoutinSOU(1982),onlylimitedconclusionscanbedrawnfrom thestudiescarriedoutthusfar.Theimportanceofthemothertongueforthechild'ssecurityand developmenthasbeendemonstrated,aswellasthepositiveresultsfromprogramswherepermanent staffareemployedwhoarefamiliarwiththechild'slanguageandculturalbackground.Theresults havealsoshownthatprogramswhichfocusonthespecialneedsofimmigrantchildrengivebetter resultswithregardtobothlanguagesthanmerelyplacingthechildinaregularSwedishgroup withoutanyattentionbeingpaidtothechild'slanguageandculturalbackground.Thisissupported byresultsfromtheliterature(seeArnberg,1983). Ontheotherhand,earlierresearchhastolduslittleabouthowtoorganizeprogramssoastobest ensurethechild'sdevelopmentinthehomelanguageandSwedish.Nowellcontrolledstudiesin whichvariousmodelshavebeencomparedhaveyetbeencarriedoutatthepreschoollevel. Althoughrecentresearchfindingsshowthatthedifferentmodelsdonotalwaysfunctionintheway inwhichtheyareintended,thereremainsaneedforresearchconcerninghowtheuseofthetwo languagesshouldbestructuredinthepreschoolsetting,especiallywithregardtoindividual children.Thelackofsuchresearchisundoubtedlyrelatedtotherecentnatureoftheproblems involved,theneedforimmediatesolutions,andtheenormouscomplexityofthearea. 500

 BilingualEducationatthePrimaryandSecondarySchoolLevels Withregardtotheevaluationofbilingualeducationprogramsattheprimaryschoollevel,a majorliteraturesurveyhasbeencarriedoutbyVirta(1983).Thepresentdiscussionfocuses mainlyonthisreport,althoughothersourcesarealsocited.Themajorityofthestudieshave involvedFinnishspeakingchildren.ImmigrantChildrenPlacedinSwedishClasses.Studiesof immigrantchildrenplacedinSwedishclasseshaveshownthatinmanycasesthechildren functiononaparwiththeirSwedishclassmates(seeWennerstrm,1967).Often,however,the resultsindicatethatthechildrenarenolongerbilingual;formany,alanguageshifttoSwedish hasoccurred,eveninthehomedomain.InastudysponsoredbytheNationalBoardofEducation (seeLiljegrenandUllman,1981,1982;Liljegren,1981aandb),theimportanceofdifferentiating resultswithregardtoindividualimmigrantgroupswasshown.Seventhousandimmigrant childrenwhocompletedprimaryschoolin1979werestudiedwithregardtogradesinSwedish andthepercentageofchildrencontinuingwithfurthereducation.Whenthegroupwas consideredasawhole,therewerenomajordifferencesbetweentheimmigrantchildrenandtheir Swedishclassmates.Nonetheless,theresultsweremuchlessfavorablewithregardtocertain specificimmigrantgroups.Toukomaa(1977)carriedoutastudyof687Finnishchildrenfrom gradesonetosixattendingSwedishclasses.Thepurposeofthestudywastoinvestigate: 1. LanguagedevelopmentinFinnishandSwedish. 2. TherelationshipbetweenL1andL2. 3. Thechildren'sschoolachievement. Thechildren'sshowednormaldevelopmentinnonverbaltestsbutwerebelowaveragein languagetestsinbothlanguages.Ingeneral,schoolachievementwaspoor.Schoolgradeswere highlycorrelatedwithlanguageskillsinbothFinnishandSwedish.Finally,childrenwithgood skillsinthemothertongueoftenhadgoodskillsinSwedish.Althoughsomeevidencefora causalrelationshipwasindicated,otherfactorsmustbeconsidered,forexample,underlying variablesrelatedtogeneralintelligencefactors. ImmigrantChildrenAttendingaTransitionalBilingualModel.Thirtyfourchildren attendingatransitionalbilingualmodelwerestudiedbyH.LfgrenandP.OuvinenBirgerstam (1980).MostofthechildrenhadattendedaFinnishspeakingpreschoolfortwoyears.In languagetestsinbothlanguages,thechildrenperformedatapproximatelyonestandarddeviation belowthenorms.Theauthorsattributedthisfindinginparttotheoverrepresentationofchildren fromworkingclassbackgroundsamongtheprojectchildren.Inschoolgradesandwithregardto standardtestresultsinSwedishandmathematics,however,thechildrenperformedaswellas theirSwedishspeakingclassmatesandchildrenfromthe 501

sameresidentialarea.TheresultswerealsocomparedtothoseofFinnishspeakingchildren attendingamothertonguemodelinastudybyK.Lasonen(1978).Althoughthechildren performedequallywellinaFinnishlanguagemeasure,inseveralregardsthetwogroupswerenot fullycomparable.ThechildreninthebilingualmodelhadattendedatwoyearFinnishspeaking bilingualpreschool,whereasthechildrenparticipatinginthemothertonguemodelhadnot. ImmigrantChildrenAttendingMotherTongueClasses.Withregardtochildrenattending mothertongueclasses,surprisinglyfewresultsareavailable.Lasonen(seeLasonenandToukomaa, 1978)studied340Finnishchildrenwhohadattendedmothertongueclassesfromgradesoneto three.TwocontrolgroupswereusedconsistingofagroupinFinlandandfiftythreeFinnish childrenwhohadattendedSwedishclasses.Theresultswereasexpected.Finnishchildrenattending FinnishclassesperformedbetterthanthoseattendingSwedishclassesinlanguagemeasuresin Finnish,althoughstillbelownormsfortheFinnishcontrolgroup.IntheSwedishlanguagemeasure theresultswereintheoppositedirection,thatis,althoughbothgroupsperformedunderthenorms forSwedishchildren,thechildrenattendingFinnishclassesperformedworse. MorelongrangeresultsareavailablefromastudybyG.Hanson(1982)whostudiedtheschool gradesof163Finnishspeakingchildrenwhohadattendedmothertongueclassesfromgradesone tosix.Thechildren'sschoolmarksatgradesseventoninewerefoundtobesimilartothoseof Swedishstudentsinparallelclasses,includingthoseinSwedish.Inaddition,thechildrenhad maintainedthemothertonguetoamuchgreaterextentthanFinnishchildrenattendingother models.AlthoughcomparisonswithFinnishchildrenattendingSwedishclasseswerecarriedout, thegeneralizationsthatcanbemadearelimitedowingtothesmallnumberofsubjects.Theresults indicated,however,thatchildrenwhohadattendedmothertongueclassesshowedbetterresultswith regardtoschoolachievementthanthoseattendingSwedishclassesandperformedequallywellin Swedish.TheresultsconcerningSwedisharesurprising,anditisunfortunatethatmorebackground dataarenotavailable.Thiswouldshedlightonwhethertheresultswereduetofactorsrelatedto languagetransfer,thepositiveselfidentityofchildrenattendingmothertongueprograms,orsample selection. ComparisonofMotherTongueandBilingualModels.TheSwedishdebatehasfocusedmainly ontheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofmothertongueversusintegratedorbilingualclasses.A studycomparingthesetwomodelswascarriedoutbyH.LfgrenandE.Ericsson(1982).The resultsareoflimitedgeneralizability,however,owingtothelargedropoutrateaswellasthe exploratorynatureofthestudy(e.g.,withregardtothelanguagemeasuresused). Finnishspeakingchildreningradesfiveandsixfromninemothertongueandsixintegratedclasses werestudied.Theresultsfromthelanguagetestsshowedthatchildrenparticipatinginmother tongueclassesperformedsomewhatbetterinFinnish,whereasthoseparticipatinginintegrated classesperformedsomewhatbetterinSwedish.Astheauthorspointout,however,thiscouldaswell have 502

beenattributedtodifferencesinbackgroundvariablesbetweenthetwogroupsastheorganizational modelitself.Childreninthemothertonguegroupwerealsomorelikelytoviewthemselvesas"less Swedish"thanchildrenintheintegratedclasses.Theauthorsalsosuggestedthatthedebatein Swedenregardingtheeffectsoforganizationmodelsisfartoorestricted,asotherfactorssuchas lengthofresidenceandsocialfactorsarehighlyimportantindeterminingtheeducationaloutcomes ofimmigrantprograms.Anotherfactorrelatedtoorganizationalmodelswasthat,inmanycases, bilingualmodelswereestablishedfororganizationalreasons(e.g.,toofewchildrentoformahome languageclass)ratherthanfor"philosophical"ones(LfgrenandEricsson,1982).Itisdifficultto imaginethatsuchafactorwillnotinfluenceprogramcontentandquality. LfgrenandEricsson(1982)thussuggestthattheroleoftheindividualorganizationalmodel shouldnotbeexaggerated.Ifthereisastrongdesireformothertongueclassesamongparentsand teachers,thereisnoreasonwhytheseclassesshouldnotbeestablished.Ontheotherhand,such programsdemandthatgreaterattentionbepaidtothesubjectofSwedishasasecondlanguagethan hasearlierbeenthecaseinordertotakeadvantageofthebenefitsofearlybilingualism.However, bilingualmodelsshouldnotbediscouragedeither,fornonegativeeffectshavebeenfoundtobe associatedwiththem. Conclusions.WithregardtoresearchconcerningtheeducationofimmigrantchildreninSweden, twomainquestionsseemimportant:(1)whetherornotthemothertongueshouldbeusedin instructionand,ifso,(2)whatformsmothertongueinstructionshouldtake:bilingualormother tongueclasses.MostofthestudiescarriedouthaveinvolvedFinnishspeakingchildren.Becauseof theparticularcircumstancesoftheFinnishspeakingminoritygroupinSweden,theresults concerningthisgroupcannotalwaysbegeneralizedtoothergroups(seee.g.,Paulston,1983). Nevertheless,somegeneraltrendswillbedescribed. Withregardtothefirstquestion,anumberofstudieshaveshownthebenefitsofmothertongue instruction.MostofthestudieshaveinvolvedFinnishchildreninwhichthechildrenarecompared withFinnishchildrenmainstreamedinSwedishclasses.Ontheotherhand,someresearchfindings haveshownthatmanyimmigrantchildrenappeartomanagewellwhenplacedinregularSwedish classes.Thus,animportanttaskforfutureresearchistoattempttoisolatethosefactorsthat contributetothedifferentialresultssothatwecanbetterunderstandtheeffectsofmothertongue instruction,especiallyinrelationtoitsbenefitsforchildrenfromavarietyofcultural,social,and linguisticbackgrounds.Apartfrompedagogicalissuesalone,however,mothertongueinstruction hasbeenshowntoplayanimportantroleinthemaintenanceoftheminoritylanguage. Withregardtothesecondquestion,thatis,theforminwhichmothertongueinstructionshouldbe given,researchershavedifferedastohowmuchimportancetheyshouldattributetothebilingual versusmothertongueeducationalmodel.ResearcherssuchasLfgrenandEricsson(1982)seemto suggestthattheroleofmodelisminorinrelationtootheroutsidefactors.Theyalsopointoutthat, inpractice,mothertongueandbilingualmodelsmayoftennotbethatdifferent. 503

Otherwriters,however,suggesttheimportanceofmothertonguemodelsforlanguagemaintenance, orforpsychologicalorpedagogicalreasons(SkutnabbKangas,1981;Virta,1983).Manyofthose researcherswhorecommendamothertonguemodel,however,donotignoretheneedforinstruction inSwedishasasecondlanguagewhichitisfeltshouldbeginasearlyaspossible. OtherResearchonBilingualism Otherresearchhasfocusedonvariousaspectsofbilingualismratherthanonbilingualeducationper se.L.Arnberg(1981,1984b)hasstudiedchildren'slanguagedevelopmentinthecontextofthe mixedlingualfamilyaswellasthepatternsofuseofthetwolanguagesinsuchfamilies(1979, 1981).Thecodedifferentiationprocessinchildrenacquiringthetwolanguagessimultaneously (ArnbergandArnberg,inpress)hasalsobeenstudied.K.Aronsson(1978,1981aandb,1983)has investigatedbilingualismandconceptformation,aswellasmetalinguisticawarenessinthebilingual child.Alsoofinterestarestudiesofinformationprocessingandbilingualism(Dornic,1979,1980) andofmemoryfunctionsinbilinguals(Mgiste,1979,1980,1982). LinguisticallyOrientedResearchonL1andL2 PublicdebateandgovernmentalconcernsaboutimmigranteducationinSwedenhave,toalarge extent,consideredorganizationalquestionssuchaswhichmodelshouldbepreferredintheteaching ofimmigrantchildren;whenthesecondlanguage,Swedish,shouldbeintroduced;howmanyhours ofinstructionshouldbedevotedtothehomelanguageandhowmanytoSwedish;andhowmany hoursofSwedishinstructionshouldbegiventoadultimmigrants.Manyoftheargumentsofferedin thediscussionoftheseissuesarebasedoneducationalandpsychologicallyorientedresearchinto bilingualismandsecondlanguageacquisition.Unfortunately,farlessemphasishasbeenplacedon discussingissuesrelatedtothecontentofbothhomelanguageinstructionandSwedishinstruction inthisdebate.Itseemstobedifficultforthosewhoarenotactivelyinvolvedintheactualteaching betheypoliticians,schooladministrators,orresearcherstotakeanactiveinterestinthecontent questions.Theviewthatmanyorganizationalquestionsaredependentoncontentissuessuchas whatisachievable,andwhatcanandwhatshouldbecarriedoutintheclassroom,hasthushad difficultygainingahearing(cf.Hyltenstam,1981). Attheindividualteacherlevel,however,thefocushasbeenoncontentquestionsforquitesome time.Asregardsthelinguisticcomponentofthecontentarea,theneedforinformationaboutthe developmentalaspectsofbothfirstandsecondlanguageshasbeenincreasinglyrecognized. Similarly,generalnormdataforbilingualdevelopmentwhereSwedishisoneofthelanguagesare necessary.Theunderlyingassumptionbehindthedesirabilityofthiskindofknowledgehasbeen thatlanguagesupportandtrainingneedtotakethepupil'sactuallinguistic 504

andcommunicativesituationasastartingpoint,furtherguidingthechild'sL1/L2developmentor theadult'sL2developmentfromthere.Suchadiagnostic/supportiveteachingapproachmust, naturally,bebasedonknowledgeaboutnormalmonolingualandbilingualdevelopment.Recent researchhasattemptedtomeettheseinformationneeds,bothwithregardtoimmigrantchildren's firstandsecondlanguagesandtheacquisitionofSwedishbyadults. Studiesofimmigrantchildren'sL1andL1developmentarepresentlybeingcarriedoutamong childrenwhospeakFinnish(Nesser,1981,1982);Hungarian(Dugantsy,1983);andSerboCroatian (Stankovski,Durovic,andTomasevic,1983).ThesestudiesshowthatfeaturesfromSwedishare transferredtotheL1softhechildren.Oneexampleisthedevelopmentofanindefinitearticlein Finnish,whichlackssuchastructure,throughtheuseoftheFinnishnumeralyksi("one"),orthe overuseoftheindefinitearticleinHungarian.Anotherexampleofdifferencesbetweenimmigrant children'suseoftheirfirstlanguageanditsstandardvarietyisthereducedphonologicalsystem employedbychildrenwhospeakSerboCroation(Stankovski,1978).Resultsfromthiskindof empiricalinvestigationshouldshedlighton"normal"L1developmentinaminoritylanguage situationofthetypeimmigrantchildrenfaceinSweden. Apartfromthesestudiesofthelanguagedevelopmentofimmigrantchildren,moregeneralstudies ofimmigrantlanguagesinSweden(SwedishEstonian,e.g.,Oksaar,1972;Raag,1982;Maandi, 1984;SwedishFinnish,Wande,1982,Lainio,1984)providenormdataofrelevanceforthehome languageteachingoftheselanguagesinSweden. AsregardsSwedishasasecondlanguage,moststudieshaveanalyzeddatafromadultlearnersor haveusedacontrastive/typologicalmethodologywithoutempiricallearnerdata.Acharacteristic featureofSwedishsecondlanguageacquisitionresearchisitstypological/comparativefocus.This canbeseenashavingbothatheoreticalandpracticalexplanation,thepracticalonebeingbasedon thevarietyoflanguagesspokenbyimmigrantsinSweden.Thus,anumberofstudieshave investigatedandcomparedlearnersofSwedishwithvariousmothertongueseitherinorderto surveyandestimatelearningproblemsthatmayoccur(Johansson,1973;HammarbergandViberg, 1977a;Tingbjrn,1976;GrdingandBannert,1979;Bannert,1980),orinordertogiveadetailed accountofcertainlinguisticphenomenathathavesurfacedasbeingproblematicforspeakersof variouslanguages(HammarbergandViberg,1976a,1976b,1977b;Hyltenstam,1977,1978,1984). ThemostimportantexceptiontotheconcentrationonadultlearnersisthesocalledSPRINSproject (Tingbjrn,1976),whereschoolchildren'slearningofSwedishhasbeeninvestigated(see,for example,Tingbjrn,1977;Andersson,1981). Whilemanyoftheabovementionedstudieshavefocusedonsyntaxorphonology,lexicalsemantic aspectsofSwedishasasecondlanguagehavealsobeenstudiedinatypologicalcomparative frameworkby.Viberg(e.g.,1980,1984a,andinvariousotherstudies).Viberg'sresultsconcern verbsinanumberof 505

semanticfieldssuchasperception,verbalcommunication,andcognition.Theyshowthat,although thedifferencesbetweenlanguagesmaybeconsiderableinthewaysinwhichtheystructurecertain semanticfields,therearealsocertainrestrictionsonsuchstructuring. U.B.Kotsinas(1982andinvariousotherstudies)hasinvestigateduntutoredadultlearnersof Swedish,mainlyfromGreece,withloweducationalbackground.Theresearchprimarilyconcerns vocabularyuseandcommunicativestrategiesusedbylearnerswithahighlyrestrictedL2.The resultsindicateunexpectedregularitiesinsemanticoverextensionsandinother"strategic"meansof expressioninlanguageproductionwhich,onthesurface,appeartobequitedisorganized. AlthoughatypologicalperspectivehasbeenpervasiveinSwedishresearch,studieshavealsobeen carriedoutonlearnersfromoneparticularbackground,forexample,HyltenstamandMagnusson (forthcoming)onFinnishlearners;Budmar(1983)onPolishlearners;andHammarberg(1986)on GermanlearnersofSwedish. Morerecent,ongoingprojectsconcernclassroominputtargetlanguagevariationasalearning problemandnativelanguageattitudestowardforeignaccents(BannertandHyltenstam,1981; Hkansson,1982;Dahlbck,1983);longitudinalstudiesofuntutoredadultlearners(Allwood, Strmqvist,andVoionmaa,1983;StrmqvistandAllwood,1985);andlongitudinalstudiesof tutoredadultlanguagelearners(VibergandAxelsson,1984).Formoredetailedoverviewsof researchintoSwedishasasecondlanguage,seeHammarberg(1984)andViberg(1984b). SUMMARY Inthisoverview,wehavesoughttogiveacomprehensivepictureoftheSwedishsolutionsforthe educationofimmigrantandotherminoritygroupstudents.Wehavealsochosentoincludeadult education,asthiseducationalsector,alongwithprogramsforchildren,hasbeenconsideredan importantmeansoffulfillingthepoliticalgoalswithregardtoSwedishpoliciesforimmigrants, especiallytheattainmentofequalopportunityandparticipationinsociety. Asabackgroundforthedescriptionoftheeducationofimmigrantchildrenandadults,abrief surveyisgivenofthedemographic,linguistic,social,political,andreligiouscharacteristicsofthe immigrantandindigenousminoritypopulations.Ahistoricaldescriptionofanumberoffactorsthat haveledtothepresentsituationisalsogiven. AnattempthasbeenmadetoexplicatethereasonsastowhytheSwedishgovernmentmadethe decisionsthatledtothesocalledHomeLanguageReformforschoolchildren,mothertongue teachingatthepreschoollevel,andSwedishinstructionforimmigrantchildrenandadults.Wehave alsoreviewedtheresearchthathasbeencarriedoutinordertoevaluate,orinotherwaysshedlight on,educationalissuesforthesegroups.Inordertomakethepicturemorecompre 506

hensive,wehavealsoincludedasectiononresearchbearingonthelinguisticcontentofthevarious programs,particularlyresearchintofirstlanguagedevelopmentinimmigrantchildren,second languageacquisitionstudiescarriedoutamongadultsandchildren,andinvestigationsintothe characteristicsoftheminoritylanguagesasspokeninSweden. BEBLIOGRAPHY TheSwedishletters"","",and""appearintheEnglishalphabeticalorderfor"a"and"o". AllwoodJ.,M.MacDowall,andS.Strmqvist.1982."Barn,sprkutvecklingochflersprkigheten kritiskversikt".UtredningomSprkminoritetenifrskoleldern.Socialdepartementet. AllwoodJ.,S.Strmqvist,andK.Voionmaa.1983."EcologyofAdultLanguageAcquisition.A PsycholinguisticResearchProject".GothenburgPapersinTheoreticalLinguistics45.Universityof Gothenburg,DepartmentofLinguistics. AnderssonAB.1981."Diktamensunderskningen."InInvandrarbarnenochtvsprkigheten,ed.G. TingbjrnandAB.Andersson.Stockholm:LiberUtbildningsfrlagetochSO,pp.5896. AnderssonAB.,andK.Naucler.1984."Sprkliginteraktionientvsprkigfrskolegrupp." SPRINSprojektet,25.UniversityofGothenburg,DepartmentofLinguistics. ArnbergL.1979."LanguageStrategiesinMixedNationalityFamilies."ScandinavianJournalof Psychology20:10512. .1981."EarlyChildhoodBilingualismintheMixedLingualFamily."LinkpingStudiesin EducationDissertations14.LinkpingUniversity. .1983."BilingualEducationforPreschoolChildren."ReportLiUPEKR73.Linkping University,ED245535. .1984a."MotherTonguePlaygroupsforPreschoolBilingualChildren."Journalof MultilingualMulticulturalDevelopment5:6584. .1984b."RemainingBilingual:AFollowupStudyofFourChildrenExposedtoEnglishand SwedishintheHomeuptoAgeSevenandaHalf."PaperpresentedattheFourthScandinavian ConferenceonBilingualism,Uppsala,June1984. ArnbergL.,andP.Arnberg.Inpress."TheRelationBetweenCodeDifferentiationandLanguage MixinginBilingualThreetoFourYearOldChildren."AcceptedforpublicationinBilingual Review. ArnstbergKO.,andB.Ehn.1976.EtniskaminoriteteriSverigefrrochnu.Lund: LiberLromedel. AronssonK.1978."LanguageConceptsandChildren'sClassificationStrategies."Dissertation Series.LundUniversity,DepartmentofPsychology. .1981a."NominalRealismandBilingualism:ACriticalReviewofStudiesonWord:Referent Differentiation."OsnabrukerBeitragezurSprachtheorie20. .1981b."TheBilingualPreschoolerasGrammarian.Children'sParaphrasesofUngrammatical Sentences."PsychologicalResearchBulletin21:1011. .1983."Rim,vitsarochsprksinne."InTalochtanke,ed.U.Teleman.Lund:LiberFrlag. 507

BannertR.1980."Svrighetermedsvenskansuttal:inventeringochprioritering."Praktisk lingvistik5.LundUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. BannertR.,andK.Hyltenstam.1981."SwedishImmigrants'Communication:Problemsof UnderstandingandBeingUnderstood."WorkingPapers21:1727.LundUniversity,Departmentof GeneralLinguistics. BoydS.1984."Denandragenerationenssprkligasituation."(Manuscript.)Gothenburg University,DepartmentofLinguistics. BudmarS.J.1983.Brytninghossvensktalandepolacker.Uppsala:AlmqvistandWiksell International. CumminsJ.1979."LinguisticInterdependenceandtheEducationalDevelopmentofBilingual Children."ReviewofEducationalResearch49:22251. DahlbckH.1983."VowelVariationinaSwedishdialectasaProblemofIntelligibilityofL2 learners."InPapersfromtheSeventhScandinavianConferenceofLinguistics,ed.F.Karlsson. 2:50620.PublicationNo.10,UniversityofHelsinki,DepartmentofGeneralLinguistics. DornicS.1979."InformationProcessinginBilinguals:SomeSelectedIssues."Psychological Research40:32948. .1980."InformationProcessingandLanguageDominance."InternationalReviewofApplied Psychology29:11940. DugantsyM.1983."UngerskaiSverige.Analysavsprkligadragisverigeungerskabarns skoluppsatser."Fuskis/Fidus7.UppsalaUniversity,FinnUgricInstitute. EdbergL.,K.Hagelin,andMHolmegaard1980."Rapportfrntvrsfrsksverksamhetmed introduktionskurserfrinvandrareleveriGteborglsren1977/78,1978/79."SPRINSprojektet4. GothenburgUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. EdbergL.,andM.Holmegaard.1982."Invandrarelevenigymnasieskolan.Faktorersompverkar studiesituationensamtfrslagtillfrsksverksamhet."SPRINSprojektet16.GothenburgUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. EkbergJ.1981."Invandrarnasinkomstfrhllanden."Statistisktidskrift3. EkstrandL.H.1979."ReplacingtheCriticalPeriodandOptimumAgeTheoriesofSecond LanguageAcquisitionwithaTheoryofOntogeneticDevelopmentBeyondPuberty."Educational andPsychologicalInteractions69.Lund:MalmSchoolofEducation. .1981a"UnpopularViewsonPopularBeliefsAboutImmigrantChildren:Contemporary PracticesandProblemsinSweden."InEducatingImmigrants,ed.J.Bhatnagar.London:Croom Helm. .1981b."TheoriesandFactsAboutEarlyBilingualisminNativeandImmigrantChildren". GrazerLinguistischeStudien14:2552. EkstrmL.1982."Invandrar/minoritetsundervisningpgrundskolanslagochmellanstadier.3 Invandrarundervisningenochlromedlen."SPRINSprojektet11.GothenburgUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. .1983."Invandrarbarnensskolsituation."Svenskaiskolan16:2935. EnstrmI.1982."Invandrar/minoritetsundervisningpgrundskolanslagochmellanstadier.2 Lrarunderskningen."SPRINSprojektet10.GothenburgUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. .1984."Hemsprkslrarna."SPRINSprojektet22.GothenburgUniversity,Departmentof Linguistics.

EnstrmI.,andG.Tingbjrn.1982."Invandrar/minoritetsundervisningpgrundskolanslgoch mellanstadier.4Invandrarkonsulenterna." 508

lgochmellanstadier.4Invandrarkonsulenterna."SPRINSprojektet2.GothenburgUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. GardellI.1978.Internationellaadoptioner.EnrapportfrnAllmnnaBarnhuset. GrdingE.,andR.Bannert.1979."ProjektrapporterOptimeringavsvensktuttal."Praktisk lingvistik1.LundUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. HkanssonG.1982."QuantitativeStudiesofTeacherTalk."ScandinavianWorkingPaperson Bilingualism1:5272.StockholmUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. HammarT.1979."SprkutbildningensommedelattninvandrarpolitiskamliSverige."In Tvsprkighet,ed.A.StedjeandP.afTrampe.Stockholm:Akademilitteratur,pp.14957. HammarT.,andS.A.Reinans.1984.SOPEMIReportonImmigrationtoSwedenin1983and1984. Stockholm:CommissionforImmigrantResearch,Sweden,EnglishSeriesReportNo.9. HammarbergB.1981."Utbildningavlrareisvenskasomfrmmandesprk."InSprkmte,ed.K. Hyltenstam.Lund:LiberLromedel,pp.96117. .1984."Forskningkringsvenskasommlsprk:fonologi."InNordenssprksommlsprk. Forskningochundervisning,ed.K.HyltenstamandK.Maandi.StockholmUniversity,Department ofLinguistics,pp4660. .1986."LearnabilityandLearnerStrategiesinSecondLanguageSyntaxandPhonology."In ModelingandAssessingSecondLanguageAcquisition,ed.K.HyltenstamandM.Pienemann. Clevedon:MultilingualMatters. HammarbergB.,andA.Viberg.1976a."Anaforiskaprocesserisvenskaniinvandrarperspektive ngrautgngspunkter."SSMReport,3.StockholmUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. HammarbergB.,andA.Viberg.1976b."ReportedspeechinSwedishandtenimmigrantlanguages". SSMReport,5.StockholmUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. HammarbergB.,andA.Viberg.1977a."Felanalysochsprktypologi.Orienteringomtvdelstudier iSSMprojektet."SSMReport,1.StockholmUniversity,DepartmentofLinguistics. HammarbergB.,andA.Viberg.1977b."ThePlaceHolderConstraint,LanguageTypology,andthe TeachingofSwedishtoImmigrants."StudiaLinguistica31:10663. HansegrdN.E.1968.Tvsprkighetellerhalvsprkighet?Stockholm:Aldus/Bonniers. .1977."Lomanochhalvsprkigheten."Invandrareochminoriteter2:3651. HansonG.1982."Finnkampen.Omfinskainvandrarbarnitvsprkighemsprksklass."Stockholm University,PsychologyDepartment.(Stencil.) HyltenstamK.1977."ImplicationalPatternsinInterlanguageSyntaxVariation."Language Learning27:383411. .1978."VariationinInterlanguageSyntax."WorkingPapers18.LundUniversity,Department ofGeneralLinguistics. .1981."Invandrarinriktadsprkundervisningochinterimsprkfrskning.Eninledning."In Sprkmte,ed.K.Hyltenstam.Lund:LiberLromedel,pp.920. .1984."TheUseofTypologicalMarkednessasPredictorinSecondLanguageAcquisition:The CaseofPronominalCopiesinRelativeClauses."InSecondLanguages,ed.R.W.Anderson. Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. HyltenstamK.,andE.Magnusson.Forthcoming."TypologicalMarkedness,ContextualVariation, andtheAcquisitionoftheVoiceContrastinStopsbyFirstandSecondLanguageLearnersof

Swedish." 509

LanguageLearnersofSwedish."InProgressioninSecondLanguageAcquisition,ed.T.Bhatiaand W.Ritchie.SpecialIssueoftheIndianJournalofAppliedLinguistics. HyltenstamK.,andC.Stroud.1982."Halvsprkighetettfrbrukatslagord."Invandrareocb minoriteter3:1013. JaakolaM.1973.Sprkgrnsen.Enstudieitvsprkighetenssociologi.Stockholm:Aldus/Bonniers. JohanssonF.A.1973.ImmigrantSwedishPhonology.AStudyinMultipleContactAnalysis.Lund: Gleerup. JohanssonH.1975.Samernassprkochkultur.Enintervjuunderskningrrandekulturella, socialaochpsykologiskafrgor.UmeUniversity,PedagogicalInstitute. KllstrmR.1982."Invandrar/minoritetsundervisningpgrundskolanslgochmellanstadier.1. Rektorsomrdesunderskningen".SPRINSprojektet9.GothenburgUniversity,Departmentof Linguistics. KotsinasU.B.1982.Svenskasvrt.Ngrainvandraressvenskatalsprk.Ordfrrdet.MINS,10. StockholmUniversity,InstituteforNordicLanguages. LainioJ.1984."Finskdialektutvecklingiensvenskindustristad.Slutrapport1.Sprksociologisk del".Fuskis/Fidus,8.UppsalaUniversity,FinnUgricInstitution. LasonenK.1978."Routsinsuomalaisetsiirtolaisoppilaat.Osa2:Empiirinentutkimus.(Finska invandrarbarniSverige.Del2:Empiriskstudie.)"ResearchReportsNo.66.Universityof Jyvlskyl,DepartmentofEducation. LasonenK.,andToukomaaP.1978."Linguisticdevelopmentandschoolachievementamong FinnishimmigrantchildreninmothertonguemediumclassesinSweden".ResearchReportsNo.70. UniversityofJyvskyl,DepartmentofEducation. LiljegrenT.1981a."Elever,medannathemsprknsvenska,somgickutgrundskolan1979," delrapport2,Skolverstyrelsen. .1981b."Elever,medannathemsprknsvenska,somgickutgrundskolan1979,"delrapport 3,Skolverstyrelsen. LiljegrenT.,andL.Ullman.1981."Elever,medannathemsprknsvenska,somgickut grundskolan1979,"delrapport1,Skolverstyrelsen. LiljegrenT.,andL.Ullman.1982."Elever,medannathemsprknsvenska,somgickut grundskolan1979,"delrapport4,Skolverstyrelsen. LfgrenH.andE.Ericsson.1982."Undervisningsmodellerfrbarnmedannathemsprkn svenska.Utvrderingavmodersmlsklasserkontrasammansattaklasser."Pedagogiskarapporter 22.UniversityofLund. LfgrenH.,andP.OuvinenBirgerstam.1980."Frskmedentvsprkigmodellfrundervisning avinvandrarbarn."Pedagogiskarapporter22,UniversityofLund. LomanB.,ed.1974.Sprkochsamhlle2.SprketiTornedalen.Lund:Gleerups. MaandiK.1984."LanguageChange.EstonianinSweden."PaperpresentedattheEighth ScandinavianConferenceofLinguistics,Copenhagen. MgisteE.1979."TheCompetingLanguageSystemsintheMultilingual:ADevelopmentStudyof DecodingandEncodingProcesses."JournalofVerbalLearningandVerbalBehavior18:7989. .1980."MemoryforNumbersinMonolingualsandBilinguals."ActaPsychologica46:6368. .1982."AutomaticityandInterferenceinBilinguals."PsychologicalResearch,44:2943

510

Malmsocialfrvaltning.1980."Latinamerikanskaprojektet."Avdelningenfrbarnomsorg,4:e distriktet. MunicioI.1983.Hemsprkifrskolan.Enunderskningavgenomfrande.Stockholm: Expertgruppenfrinvandrarforskning.Rapportnr.21. MunicioI.,andT.MeisaariPolsa.1980.Sprkkunskaperochlevnadsfrhllanden.Stockholm: Expertgruppenfrinvandrarfrskning.Rapportnr.12. NauclerK.1983."Hemsprketifrskolan."SPRINSprojektet19.GothenburgUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. .1984."Sprkvxlingientvsprkigfrskolegrupp."SPRINSprojektet26.Gothenburg University,DepartmentofLinguistics. NesserA.1981."Finskabarnssprkutvecklingfonologiochmorfologi."Fuskis/Fidus2.Uppsala University,FinnUgricInstitution. .1982."Subjekt.objektochpredikativiSverigefinskabarnsuppsatser."Fuskis/Fidus5. UppsalaUniversity,FinnUgricInstitution. hmanS.1981."Halvsprkighetsomkastmrke."IAttlevamedmngfalden.Stockholm: LiberFrlag. OksaarE.1972."SpokenEstonianinSwedenandinUSA:AnAnalysisofBilingualBehavior."In StudiesforEinarHaugen,ed.E.S.Firchovetal.TheHague:Mouton,pp.43749. .1980."Tvsprkighetiteoriochpraktik."InvandrareochMinoriteter56:4347. OuvinenBirgerstamP.,andE.Wigforss.1978."PerttiToukomaasunderskningarsaknar vetenskapligtckning."Invandrareochminoriteter2:1623,31. PaulstonC.B.1983.SwedishResearchandDebateAboutBilingualism.Stockholm: Skolverstyrelsen. PienemannM.1977."ZurbilingualenSchulefrauslndischeArbeiterkinder."StudiumLinguistik 4:8791. RaagR.1982.LexicalCharacteristicsinSwedishEstonian.ActaUniversitatisUpsaliensis,Studia UralicaetaltaicaUpsaliensis,13,Uppsala. .1983."EstniskaniSverige."Fuskis/Fidus6.UppsalaUniversity,FinnUgricInstitution. RnmarkW.,andJ.Wikstrm.1980.TvsprkighetiTornedalen.Sammanfattningochdiskussion. UmeUniversity,PedagogicalInstitution. RosenthalR.,andL.Jacobsson.1968."SelfFulfillingPropheciesintheClassroom:Teacher's ExpectationsasUnintendedDeterminantsofPupils'IntellectualCompetence."InSocialClass, RaceandPsychologicalDevelopment,ed.M.Deutsch,J.Katz,andA.Jensen.NewYork:Holt. SchylBjurmanG.1975."RapportomfrsksverksamheteniBorsmedhemsprkstrningfr invandrarbarnifrskola."Socialstyrelsensfrsksverksamhetinombarnstugeomrdet(FIB). SIV.1982.Flersprkigsamhllsservice.Norrkping:Statensinvandrarverk. SkutnabbKangasT.1981.Tvsprkighet.Lund:LiberLromedel. SkutnabbKangasT.,andP.Toukomaa.1976."TeachingMigrantChildren'sMotherTongueand LearningtheLanguageoftheHostCountryintheContextoftheSocioculturalSituationofthe MigrantFamily."TutkimuksiaResearchReports15.UniversityofTampere,Departmentof SociologyandSocialPsychology.

SmithM.1935."AStudyoftheSpeechofEightBilingualChildrenoftheSameFamily."Child Development6:1925. 511

S.1977.Introduktionskursfrinvandrarungdom.Lroplanfrgymnasieskolan.SupplementNr S2,77:2.Skolverstyrelsen. .1979.Invandrarnaochutbildningsvsendet.HandlingsprogramfrS'sarbetemed invandrarfrgor.Stockholm:Skolverstyrelsen. SOS.1984.Temainvandrare.Levnadsfrhllanden.Rapport38.Stockholm:Statistiska centralbyrn. SOU.1974."Invandrareochminoriteter."Statensoffentligautredningar69. .1981a."Svenskundervisningfrvuxnainvandrare.vervgandenochfrslag"Statens offentligautredningar86. .1981b."Svenskundervisningfrvuxnainvandrare.Kartlggningavnulaget."Statens offentligautredningar87. .1982."Sprkochkulturstdforinvandrarochminoritetsbarnifrskoleldern."Statens offentligautredningar43. .1983."OlikaursprungGemenskapiSverige."Statensoffentligautredningar57. .1984."Rstrttochmedborgarskap.Invandraresochutlandssvenskarsrstrtt".Statens offentligautredningar1112. StankovskiM.1978."Procesiredukcijefonoloskojsistemasrpskohrvatskogkoddjecedoseljenikau svedskojjezicnojsredeni."SlavicaLundensia6.LundUniversity,SlavicInstitution,pp.2149. StankovskiM.,L.Durovic,andM.Tomasevic.1983."DevelopmentStructuresintheFamily LanguageofYugoslavImmigrantChildreninaSwedishLanguageEnvironment."Slavica Lundensia9.LundUniversity,SlavicInstitution,pp.1120. StatisticsSweden.1983.ImmigrantsandImmigrantTeachinginSweden.Stockholm:Statistics Sweden. Statistiskameddelanden.1983."Frskolor,fritidshemochfamiljdaghemden31december1982."S 1983:18. StockfeltHoatsonBI.1978."TrainingofImmigrantChildreninPreschoolinNorrkping." LinkpingStudiesinEducationDissertations8.LinkpingUniversity. StrmqvistS.,andJ.Allwood.1985."EcologyofAdultLanguageAcquisition.APsycholinguistic ResearchProject."ScandinavianWorkingPapersinBilingualism4.StockholmUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. StroudC.1978."TheConceptofSemilingualism."WorkingPapers16.LundUniversity,Department ofGeneralLinguistics,pp.15372. SvenssonG.1979."Sminvandrarbarnpdaghem."Familjestdsutredningenvid Socialdepartementet. SwedishInstitute.1984."PrimaryandSecondaryEducationinSweden."FactSheetsonSweden. TingbjrnG.1976."SprkutvecklingenhosinvandrarbarniSverige(SPRINS)."InPapersfromthe FirstNordicConferenceonBilingualism,ed.T.SkutnabbKangas.HelsingforsUniversity, InstitutionforNordicPhilology,pp.8491. .1977."Invandrarsvenska."Svensklrarfreningensrsskrift1977,pp.3551. .1981."Svenskasomfrmmandesprkiungdomsskolan."InSprkmte,ed.K.Hyltenstam. Lund:LiberLromedel,pp.6695.

.1983."Svenskasomandrasprk."Svenskaiskolan16:923. ToukomaaP.1977."Omfinskainvandrareleverssprkutveklingochskolframgngidensvenska grundskolan.Expertgruppenfrinvandrarfrskning(EIFO)." 512

densvenskagrundskolan.Expertgruppenfrinvandrarfrskning(EIFO)."Stockholm: Arbetsmarknadsdepartementet. Viberg.1980."Tresemantiskafltisvenskanochngraandrasprk.1.Kognitivapredikat.2. Perceptionsverbenssemantik.3.Emotivapredikat."SSMReport7.StockholmUniversity, DepartmentofLinguistics. .1984a."TheVerbsofPerception:ATypologicalStudy."InExplanationsforLanguage Universals,ed.B.Butterworth,B.Comrie,andO.Dahl.Berlin:Mouton,pp.12362. .1984b."Forskningkringsvenskasommlsprk:grammatikochordfrrd."InNordenssprk sommlsprk.Forskningochundervisning,ed.K.HyltenstamandK.Maandi.Stockholm University,DepartmentofLinguistics,pp.345: Viberg.,andM.Axelsson.1984."TheAcquisitionofSwedishasaSecondLanguageinthe Classroom.SomePreliminaryFindings."PaperpresentedattheFourthScandinavianConference onBilingualism,Uppsala,June1984. VirtaE.1983.Sprkligttnkande,tvsprkighetochundervisningavminoritetsbarn.DsU 1983:17.Utbildningsdepartementet. WandeE.1977."Hansegrdrensidig."Invandrareochminoriteter34:4451. .1982."FinskaniSverige."Fiskus/Fidus,3.UppsalaUniversity,FinnUgricInstitution. WennerstrmG.1967."Sprkliganpassningochstudieframgnghosbarntillutlndska frldrar."Rapportnr18frnPedagogiskpsykologiskainstitutionen,LrarhgskolaniStockholm. WestinC.1984.Majoritetomminoritet.Enstudieietnisktoleransi1980taletsSverige.Stockholm: Liber. WidgrenJ.1980.Svenskinvandrarpolitik.Lund:LiberLromedel. 513 [Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 514

thelanguagesseparateinthemindsofspeakers,especiallyintheareasofintenselanguage contact(Kolde,1981). Athirdandveryastonishingopinion,tobefoundquitefrequentlyamongGermanlaypeople,is thatSwitzerlandisnotamultilingualcountryatall.Thiserror,ridiculousthoughitmaybe, correspondscloselytotheseriousreproachofnumerousFrenchSwissagainsttheirGerman speakingconfederates:thattheytoooftensimplyforgettheotherlanguagecommunitiesintheir owncountry.ButevenGermanlinguistssometimesmakerathercarelessformulations:P.Khn (1980:536,mytranslation)findsthat"languagedevelopmentinSwitzerland(sic)isstillonthe roadfromdiglossiatobilingualism,"astatementwhich,aswewillsee,makesnosenseatallfor FrenchSwitzerland. DuringtwelveyearsatGenevaIhavecometorecognizethecomplexityandvarietyoflanguage contactsinthiscountry.Thesecontactsresistgeneralization.AsIwilldaretotreatrather extensivelythehighlycontroversialquestionsoflanguagepoliticsandethnicidentity,Iwould liketostressonceandforallthatIhavelearnedtoadmiretheSwisswayofhandlingthe problemsinthesefields.Overmanycenturieseffectivepatternsofcoexistencehavebeen developed,which,unfortunately,cannotbesimplytakenoverbyothermultilingualcountries withmoreproblemsandanotherhistory. Throughoutthischapter,emphasisisonthesociolinguisticaspectsoflanguagecontact.The effectsofthiscontactonthelanguagesandlanguagevarietiesincontactwillonlybementioned occasionally.Noexhaustivedescriptionofinterferencephenomenaandtheresultingpeculiarities ofthelanguagesisintended. BASICDESCRIPTIONOFTHESWISSLANGUAGES,LANGUAGECOMMUNITIES, ANDLANGUAGEBORDERS ThefournationallanguagesofSwitzerlandareGerman,French,Italian,andRomansh(Federal Constitution,Art.116).Thefollowingtermsareusedthroughoutthischaptertodenote languages,withoutanypoliticalimplications.TheGermanspeakingSwissarecalled"German Swiss"(Deutschschweizer),andtheregionalvariety(ies)ofGermantheyspeak,"SwissGerman" (Schweizerdeutsch).ThecorrespondingtermsareusedinthecaseofFrenchandItalian,andfor thespeakersofRomansh,U.Weinreich'sterm"Retoromans"isused. Concerningthedegreeofstandardizationandinnervariationoftheselanguages,twowellknown factsmustalwaysbeborneinmind:(1)ThestandardvarietiesofSwissGerman,French,and ItalianaremoreorlessidenticalwithgreatEuropeanlanguagesofhighpracticalandcultural value,whereasacommonstandardformofRomanshdoesnotyetexist,butratheronlyfour distinctregionalforms,eachofthemspokenandwritten.(2)Fororalcommunicationwithinthe group,theGermanandItalianSwissuseexclusivelylocalorregionaldialects,whiletheFrench "patois"arepracticallyextinctonSwissterritory. Switzerland'srespectivelanguagecommunitiesareofverydifferentsize,rangingfromthetwo thirdsGermanmajoritytothe0.8percentRetoroman 516

minority.Duringthelasthundredyears,theproportionshaveremainednearlystable.Inviewof considerableinternalmigrationandimmigration,thedefinitionofmothertonguegiveninthe explanationstocensusquestionnairesmustbekeptinmind:itisthelanguage"inwhichone thinksandwhichoneknowsbest"aclearlyassimilationorientateddefinition. IfweonlytakeSwisscitizensintoconsideration,theItalianspeakingproportionofthe populationin1980dropsbymorethanhalfbecauseforeignworkersfromItalyfaroutnumber nativeItalianSwiss.Thegreatmajorityofthe6percentof"otherlanguages"areforeignworkers, too,mainlyfromothersoutherncountries,whereaspoliticalrefugeesarenotcrucial. TheSwissGerman,French,andItalianlanguageareasare"only"appendagesofmuchgreater languageareas,whilethesmallRomanshareaisisolatedfromitsnearestlinguisticandcultural relatives,allofwhomarealsominorities.Moreover,theRomanshareaisinterspersedwith Germanislands,asalargescalemapwouldmakeapparent,"likeapieceofRomanpurplethat wascaughtandtomoffbytheAlpinepeaks"(Weinreich,1952:268).ThegreatcentralGerman Swissareaextends,likeahugewedge,withthenorthernSwissfrontierasbase,farintothe Romanceterritory,thusdividingthelatterintoaWestern(French)andanEastern(Italianand Romansh)area,animpressivevisualizationofthehistorical"invasion"oftheAlemannics. ThedifferentSwisslanguageareasaredefinedonthebasisoftheofficiallanguageofeach commune,which,inturn,isalwaystheprincipallanguageofthemajorityofitspopulation accordingtocensusdata.Therefore,allcommunesareofficiallyunilingual,withBiel/Bienneas thesoleexception,butthelanguageareasarenotashomogeneousastheymightseem. Furthermore,thepolitical(i.e.,cantonal)bordersdonotcoincidetotallywiththelanguage borders.Inviewofthegreatautonomyofthecantonsinlanguagelegislationandpolitics,itis worthmentioningthatseventeen(oftwentysix)cantons(andhalfcantons)areunilingual German,fourunilingualFrench(Geneva,Vaud,Neuchatel,Jura),andoneunilingualItalian (Ticino),whereasthreehaveaGermanandaFrenchlanguagearea:BerneatinyFrench,and FribourgandValaisaonethirdGermanminoritywithdifferinglegalstatus.Accordingtothe cantonalconstitution,BerneandValaisarebilingual,butnotsoFribourg.Finally,onecantonis eventrilingual:theGrisonshaveRomansh,German,andItalianascantonallanguages.Itisquite evidentthattheplurilingualcantonsareareasofintenselanguagecontact.Buteventhe "unilingual"onesarenothomogeneousaccordingtothemothertongueoftheirinhabitantsand showinterestingdifferencesowingtoasymmetricalpatternsofinternalmigration. Thelanguagebordersaresharplydefinedaccordingtotheofficiallocallanguage."Natural borders"hinderdirectlanguagecontacton90percentofthem,accordingtoWeinreich (1952:103),butextremelydifferentpopulationdensityandthedevelopmentof telecommunicationsreducethisimpactofSwissgeography.Fromwesttoeast,thefollowing segmentsofthelanguageborderscanbedistinguished.IntheJurasouthofBasel,theFrench Germanborderisnow 517

ratherstable,aftertheassimilationoftheSwissGermanimmigrantsofformercenturiestotheir Frenchspeakingneighbors(Buchmann,1963).Inthe"Mittelland"betweentheJuraandtheAlps, thetwobilingualcitiesBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburgaresituatedonthelanguageborder, markedbynonaturalbarrier,andthereexistsastripoflinguisticallymixedpopulationwhichis muchbroaderontheFrenchsideoftheofficiallanguageborderthanonitsGermanside(Kolde, 1981:8595),becauseofthepermanentimmigration(andsubsequentrapidassimilation)ofGerman Swiss.Thecentralalpinepartofthelanguageborderfollowsalmostentirelythemainridgesofthe Alps.TheonlyplacewhereitcanmoveeasilyisthevalleyoftheRhone,andtheretheFrencharea hasenlargedduringrecentcenturies.Finally,inEasternSwitzerland,thelanguageborderbetween theGermanandtheRomanshareaisratherunstableandconfused,withgrowingGermanspeaking minoritieseveninthecenteroftheRomanshareas. HISTORICALBACKGROUND ThepresentdayterritoryofSwitzerlandhasprobablybeenthesceneofintensecultureand languagecontactforatleastthreemillennia,butweknowverylittleaboutthetimesbeforethe arrivaloftheRomans.InthevalleysoftheWesternAlpsandtheirfoothills,theRomanarmies foundaCelticpopulationthathasleftfewtracesofitslanguage(someplacenamesandtermsfor farmimplements),tosaynothingofthenonIndoEuropeanpeopleswhohadbeenassimilatedby theimmigratingCeltsmanycenturiesearlier.UndertheruleoftheRomans,thepopulationofthe WesternAlpineprovincesdeveloped,onthesubstratumoftheirnativeCelticidioms,somesortofa "Latinpidgin"called"GalloRomance."FromthethirdcenturyA.D.Germanictribes,the Alemanni,repeatedlyinvadedtheregionbetweentheAlpsandtheJura,destroyingRomancastles fartothesouth,buttheyregularlywithdrewaftertheirinvasions.Whenin436A.D.the BurgundianswerenearlyannihilatedbytheHuns,theRomancommanderAtiussettledtherestof thisGermanicpeopleintheregionsouthofGenevainordertostabilizethisstrategicallyimportant area.There,theyfoundedakingdom,whichlastedaboutacentury,andbuiltupawellfunctioning administrationfortheregionuptotheLakeofBiel.Butastheyassimilatedveryquicklyintothe indigenousGalloRomanpopulation,theirlanguagehasnotleftmanytracesinthelocaldialects, asideperhapsfromensasthesuffixofplacenames. Atthebeginningofthesixthcentury,theAlemannidefinitelycrossedtheRhine,withoutmeeting muchresistance.TheysettleddownpermanentlyintheopencountrybetweentheAlpsandtheJura, moregradually,inthelowerpartsofthemountainvalleys.Theseareashadbeenmoreorless depopulatedduringtheturmoilofthedeclineofRomanpower,whereasthetownsandcastles remainedGalloRomansomewhatlonger.InthenorthernpartsofpresentdaySwitzerland,the indigenousGalloRomanpopulationgraduallyassimilatedwiththeGermanicnewcomers,butthe moretheAlemanniadvancedtothesouth, 518

themoretheythemselvesbecameassimilated,especiallyintheregionofformerBurgundian administration.Duringtheseventhcentury,partsoftheLakeDistrictbetweentheLakesof Neuenburg,Biel,andMurtenwereinhabitedbyGalloRomans,Burgundians,andAlemanni, apparentlylivinginpeacefulcoexistence.In750,theRiverAarebecametheborderbetweenthe diocesesofLausanneandConstance.Ontheonehand,thischurchadministrativebordernodoubt followedthefirststretchesofaGermanicRomancelanguageborderbetweentheAlpsandtheJura, and,ontheotherhand,itstabilizedthem.Butthereremained,formanycenturies,longsegments wherethetwolanguagegroupswereseparatedfromeachotherbyuninhabitedregions. Byabout1,000A.D.,arathercontinuouslanguageborderdividingthepresentwesternpartof Switzerlandintoanorthernandasouthernportionwasestablishedinmoreorlessitspresentform. TheearlyhistoryoftheeasternpartofpresentSwitzerlandwasquitedifferent.Duringthefive centuriesofRomanoccupation,onthebasisoftheiroriginal,probablynonIndoEuropean language,theindigenousRaetsdevelopedaRomanpidginnamed"Romansh."Atitsmaximum extension,theareaofthislanguage(orgroupoflanguages)extendedfromtheDanubetothe Adriatic.ButasaresultofAlemannicandBavarianimmigration,thisareadiminishedtothree isolatedlanguageislands:theeasternFriuliangroupinthepresentItalianProvinceofUdine,the centralDolomitegroupinpresentSouthTyrol,andthewestern"PrimaRaetia"groupwhichwas incorporated,after806,intotheFrankishEmpireandthedioceseofMayence.Itssubsequent Germanizationbeganamongtherulingclassesandinthetowns,particularlyatChur,whichhas beenatotallyGermantownsincethefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies.TodaytheRetoromanshave nocentermoreofthemliveinZurichthanChur!ThemovementoftheGermanicWalsershad alreadyreachedtheRetoromanterritoryinthethirteenthcentury,andafterlongperiodsofconflict theRetoroman,BndnerGerman,Walser,andItalianregionswereratherwelldefinedfromthe sixteenthtothenineteenthcentury.Todaywearewitnessingwhatmaybethefinalphaseinthe Germanizationofthisregion. ThesmallareasouthofthecentralalpinechainwestoftheRetoromanterritory,actuallyItalian Switzerland,belongedtothekingdomoftheLongobardsfrom570to774,butonlysomeplace namesinTicinorecallthisperiodofcontactwithGermanicpeoples.Afteronecenturyof Carolingianrule,theregionbecamepartoftheDukedomofMilan,and,sincethemovementofthe Walsersreachedonlythenorthwesternedgeofit(BoscoGurin),theSt.GotthardPassremainedthe AlemannicItalianborder. TheSwissConfederation,foundedin1291,containedformanycenturiesonlyGermanspeaking cantonsasfullmembers.FreiburgwasadmittedasaGermanFrenchbilingualcantonin1481,but onlyontheconditionthatthereshouldbeamarkedGermanizationofitsadministrationandschool system(Kolde,1981:101).Duringthefollowingperiodandupto1798,severalcantonsconcluded treatiesofmutualassistancewithnonconfederatetownsandterritories, 519

whichthusbecame"indirect"allies("ZugewandteOrte")oftheConfederation.Otherterritories weresubjectlands("Untertanenlnder")oftheoriginalcantons.Manyoftheallies(likeGenevaor partsofValais)andofthesubjectlands(likeVaudorTicino)wereentirelyRomancespeaking. Eveninthecaseofthesubjectlands,themastersapparentlydidnotinterferewithregionallanguage practices.However,this"tolerant"languagepoliticsdoesnotreflecttheliberalprinciplesofthe GermanSwissmastercantons,butsimplythefactthatuntiltheeighteenthcenturylanguagewasnot consideredanimportantpoliticalfactor.Someproblemsdidarise,forinstance,inTicinowhenthe vernacularlanguagescametoreplaceLatinasthelanguageofthecourts,orwhenmanyGerman Swissimmigrated,fordenominationalandeconomicreasons,intotheFrenchJuraduringthe eighteenthcentury.ButinallthesesituationstheSwisswereabletodevelopproceduresand traditionsfordealingwithlanguage(andother)minorities.Unfortunately,therearestillgreatgaps inourknowledgeofhistoricallanguagecontactpatternsandproblemsinSwitzerland. Wealsoneedtoknowmuchmorethanwedoaboutanotherveryimportanthistoricalprocessthe radicallydifferentdialectdevelopment.Ontheonehand,therewasacompletelanguageshiftofthe "French"Swisspopulationfromthepatoistostandard(Paris)French.(Rousseau,bornin1712in ProtestantGeneva,didnotunderstandawordofthelocalpatois,andatthepresenttimeonecan findonlyafewoldwomeninremoteCatholicvalleyswhostillspeakpatois.)Ontheotherhand,we havewitnessedthedevelopment,inGermanandItalianSwitzerland,ofadialectstandarddiglossia, andfinallythereexistfourdifferentvarietiesofSwissRomansh,eachofthemspokenandwritten. EffortstomakeupaunifiedstandardRomanshforalimitedrangeofwrittenusehaveonlyjust begun. Strictlyspeaking,theConfederationremained,asapoliticalbody,unilingualGermanuntil1798. TheFrenchandItalianterritoriesbecameindependentcantonsonlyduringoraftertheNapoleonic eraTicinoandVaudin1803,Neuchatel,Valais,andGenevain1815.ButtheConstitutionofthe HelveticRepublic(1798)hadalreadygiventotheFrenchandItalianlanguagesequalrankwith Germanasofficiallanguagesofthenewstate(Kohn,1956:47).TheliberalfederalConstitutionof 1848providesinArticle109thatGerman,French,andItalianarethenationallanguagesof Switzerland.DuringWorldWarI,theslowtodevelopSwissnationalidentity,alreadyweakenedby languageconflictsbetweenFrenchandGermanSwitzerlandaroundtheturnofthecentury(Mller, 1977,andseveralcontributionsinduBois,1983)wentthroughadifficultperiod.Then,bya referendumin1938theSwisscitizenryadoptedanamendmenttothefederalConstitution recognizingRomanshasthefourthnationallanguageand,atthesametime,splittingtheconceptof "nationallanguage"into"national"and"unofficial"(forfederalaffairs),theunofficialstatusnot beingattributedtoRomansh.Thisdecision,a"typicalSwiss"compromiseinviewofthe1percent ofRetoromans,waspartlytheSwissreactiontotheItalian 520

irridentistclaimthatRomanshwasonlyanItaliandialectandthattheRetoromansshould consequentlyjointhenewfascisticItaly(Weinreich,1952:107). Astheresultofsometimesviolentseparatistactivitiesandafteralonglegalprocedure,including votingatallpoliticallevels,thenorthwesternpartoftheFrenchspeakingJurabecameindependent fromBernein1978,asthetwentythirdandoneofthesmallest(andpoorest)cantonsofthe Confederation.SincetheeconomicallymoreimportantsouthernpartoftheJuradecidedtoremain Bernese,thenotoriousJuraconflicthasnotyetbeendefinitelysettled.Evenifthisconflictwasnot primarilyalanguageconflict,butaneconomicanddenominationalone(Keech,1972),theethnic notionof"romand"(seebelow)andthus,indirectly,language,playedanimportantroleasasymbol ofidentityandseparation. THEPRESENTCONTACTSITUATION AsopinionsabouttheactualdegreeofharmonyintheinterrelationsofthefourSwisslanguage groupsareextremelycontroversial,itisimpossibletogive,inbrief,acomprehensiveandcoherent report.Instead,wewillexamineonlygeneralfactorsthatareoftensupposedtoreduceconflicts. TheTerritorialPrinciple Thelongstandingdemocraticandfederalisttradition,withitsmarkedcantonalandlocalautonomy inlanguagepolicy,hasnodoubthelpedreducethenumberofpotentiallydamaginglanguage contactsituationsandfavorsindividualassimilations.Inaddition,thebasicterritorialprinciple meansthat,withtheuniqueexceptionofBiel/Bienne,allcommunesareofficiallyunilingual,and eveninthistownschoolingatleastisunilingual.Butasthefunctionalandtheindividualprinciple mustalsobetakenintoconsideration,atfirstglancelegalandadministrativedecisionssometimes donotappeartobefullycoherent.Recently,thefederalgovernmenthasrejected,forinstance,the demandofaJurassianpoliticianthattheConfederationshouldprotectthelanguageborders,the immediatecauseofthisdemandbeingthepresumedGermanizationoftheSouthernJura.The groundsforthisrejectionwerethattheConstitutionguaranteestheexistenceofthenational languages,butnottheprecisebordersoftheirrespectiveareas.Tocreate"nationallanguageparks," possiblyagainstthewillofthepopulationconcerned,wouldgoagainsttheindividualliberty.On theotherhand,thefederalSupremeCourthasrepeatedlydecidedagainstGermanSwissinhabitants ofRetoromancommuneswhodidnotwanttosendtheirchildrentoRomanshprimaryschool.In thiscase,theterritorialprinciplewinsovertheindividualonebecausethe"existence"ofthe languageisindanger.ForR.Viletta(1978),aRetoromanexpertinlanguagelegislation,the territorialprincipleis"thephilanthropicandprogressivenotionofprotectinglanguagecommunities intheir 521

historicalterritory,"whereas,inthenameoftheJurassiansC.Merkelbach(1978:35)surprisingly criticizestherigidapplicationofthisprinciple,becauseitdoesnotpreventthelanguageborders fromshifting.Furthermore,theterritorialprinciplescausegreatschoolproblemsinthecaseof migrationacrossthelanguageborder(Ldi,1981:132)andcannotpreventtheformerly inconceivablemultiplicationoflanguagecontactsituationsowingtotheevergrowingindustrialand economiccomplexityandthepowerofthemassmedia. Inourday,politicalandcommercialstandardizationonanationalSwisslevelevenresultsina growingnumberof"nationalwords"(orsemanticvariants)commontoandtypicalfortheSwiss varietiesofallfournationallanguages.Forexample:SwissFrenchaction,SwissGermanAktion, SwissItalianazione,andRomanshaczuinhavethesamemeaning,justasdooffrespecialeinthe FrenchofFrance,SonderangebotintheGermanofGermany,offertaspecialeintheItalianofItaly, andspecialofferinEnglish. LackofCongruenceofLinguisticandSocialCulturalDivisions OneofthemajorreasonsforthewellknownSwiss"languagepeace"isthelackofcongruence betweenlanguageandothersocialdivisionssuchasthedenominational,cultural,orruralurban division(Weinreich,1953:97,followingMeyer,1939).Thisdescriptionisratheridealized,however. First,onemustrecallthatduringmanycenturiesonlyGermancantonswerefullmembersofthe Confederation.Furthermore,political,administrative,andeconomicpowerismoreandmore concentratedinthegreatGermanSwisscitiesofZurich,Basel,andBerne.Thus,thefeelingof beingcolonizedandexploitedismostoftenexpressedintheperipheralFrench,Italian,and Romanshterritories,althoughmanyGermanSwissregionsareinthesamesituation.Finally,other socialcriteria,likereligiousdenomination,education,profession,andruralversusurbanresidence, arelosingmuchoftheirformerimpactinmodernegalitariansociety,andthelanguageoftenisthe mostimportantattributeofsocialidentityinaworldof"totalinformation,"theindividualmembers ofwhicharenomorepolyglotthantheywerebefore. AninterestingcounterexampletoWeinreich'sidealizedviewisthecaseofFribourg.Inthiscity, duringmanycenturiesGermanwasassociatedwith"manualwork,""ruralorigin,""reactionary," "narrowminded,""livingintheoldestsectionofthecity,"andFrenchwith"urban,""educated," "welltodo,""liberaldemocratic,progressive,"and"livingintheuppercity."Todayallthese stereotypescanstillbemetand(partly)falsifiedstatistically(Kolde,1981:10815). ThePrincipleofProportionalRepresentation AllSwissminoritiesenjoythestrictapplicationofthisprinciple,fromthetoppositionsinfederal politicsandadministrationtothemassmedia.Buttheprob 522

lemswiththemagicformulaforfederalstaffingbeginwiththedefinitionof"topposition":using differentcriteria,GermanaswellasFrenchSwissobserversmayfeelthattheirownlanguagegroup isunderrepresented,whileforthe1percentRetoromansthisprinciplecannotworkatall.Insome cases,themostappropriatecandidateforaspecifictaskmightnothavethe"right"mothertongue, andthushisorherchoicewilldisturbthelinguisticequilibrium. ItiscommonpracticeinSwisslinguisticallymixedofficialbodiesforalltospeaktheirown language,theinterlocutors'understandingcompetenceinothernationallanguagestakenforgranted (Kolde,1981:23740).ButthisprincipleworksonlyforGermanandFrench,andeventheresurely notinallsocialclasses.Thefederaltranslationservice,whichisresponsiblefortheimmediateand accuratetranslationoftheincreasingfloodofpoliticalandadministrativetextsintothetwoother officiallanguages,cannotalwaysmeetthehighrequirementsofoversensitiveminorities. ThepressposesproblemsonlyfortheRetoromansbecausetheregionalRomanshpaperssuffer fromtheoffensivemarketingstrategiesofpowerfulGermanSwisseditors.Moreover,the RetoromansmustcontentthemselveswithafewhoursweeklyofradioandTVprogramming incorporatedintotheGermanSwisschannel.Ontheotherhand,theGermanSwiss,FrenchSwiss, andItalianSwissradioandTVprogramscanbereceivedeverywhereinSwitzerland.Recentprivate localradiostationsinBielandFribourgbroadcastinthetwolocallanguages,intheexact demographicproportions.Thepublicclamorforequaltreatmentofthedifferentlanguage communitiesissovigorousthatrecentlytheuseofonetelevisionchannelforspecialsports programsprovokedafloodofprotestletters,evenappealstotheSupremeCourt,becauseinGerman SwitzerlanditwasalwaystheItalianprogram(inFrenchSwitzerland,theGermanorItalianone) thatwassacrificed. TheSwissNationalConsciousness TheSwissnationalconsciousnessisbasedonsharedvaluessuchasneutrality,tolerance,cultural pluralism,andnationalinstitutionslikethecitizenarmy.TheConfederationisregardedbyeachof itsvariousgroupsastheguarantorofitsownwayoflife(territorialnationas"Willensnation," Weilenmann,1925).ThenecessitytodefinetheSwissnationincontrasttoneighboringnationswith thesameculturalbackgroundandnearlythesamestandardlanguageasoneoftheSwisslanguage communities,butoftenwithratherdifferentpoliticalsystemsandrecenthistory,hasnodoubt strengthenedinternalSwisscoherenceandsolidarity.C.Schmid(1982:73)findsa"senseofshared nationalidentity...especiallyamongtheyoungergroups,"althoughthefeelingfortheculturalkin "isstrongerfortheFrenchminoritythanfortheGermanminority."However,thegeneralEuropean stereotypesconcerningthe"RomanceGermanic"oppositionandthe"culturalgradient"fromwest toeastexistinSwitzerland,too,andaresometimesevenreinforced:intheeyesoftheFrenchSwiss, theGerman 523

Swissareeven"moretypicalGermans"thantheGermansthemselves,andviceversa. TheDisputedFourSwissEthnicGroups WehavejusttouchedonthecentralandmostcontroversialquestionofSwisspluralism:thatof nationalversus"ethnic"identity.Aswehaveseeninthehistoricaloutline,onecannotspeakof differentSwissethnicgroupsinaracialanthropologicalsense:themixtureof"Celtic,""Romance," and"Germanic"isnearlythesameinallpartsofSwitzerland,andthefamilynamesinGeneva phonebooksreflecttheintenseinnermigrationandimmigrationoverrecentcenturies.Butcommon history,religiousaffiliation,economicinterests,andculturaltraditions(fromdialectstocarnivals) havecreatedmarkedlocal(communal)andregional(cantonal)identities.Consequently,inthe generalopinionSwisscitizensdisplaythefollowingthreehierarchicallyorderedidentities.First, theyargueandactasmembersofacommune,secondasinhabitantsofacanton,thirdasSwiss citizens,whereasthecommonlanguagedoesnotconstituteawelldefinedidentity.Itistruethat,for example,theGenevoisandtheVaudois,bothProtestantFrenchSwiss,areatleastasdifferentfrom eachotherinmanyrespectsastheGenevoisandtheBalois:"LaRomandien'existepas"(Pichard, 1978).ItispartoftheideologyofSwisspluralismthattheweaknessoflanguagebasedethnicityis oneofthemajorreasonsforSwiss"languagepeace." ButduringthelastfewdecadesawordseemstobeusedmoreandmorefrequentlyinFrench Switzerland.ThewordfrightensthehistorianDenisvanBerchem,ashesaidinaninterview publishedbytheJournaldeGenveonDecember22,1982,becauseitdenotesa"falseinstitution withoutdeeproots":thewordromand,romandie.Thesefearsarewellfounded:theamateur historianandValaisanclergymanClovisLugoncallsforamodificationofthefederalConstitution tocreatea"ConseildesEtatsromands."Moreover,severalmovementsandassociationsinFrench Switzerlandproposeto"wakeup"the"romands"andtodefendtheirinterestsandtheirlanguage, suchasthe"Associationromandedesolidaritfrancophone"inGenevaandthe"Mouvement populaireromand"inLausanne.Theyhaveeveninventedacommonromandflag,bluewhitered withsixstars(symbolizingthesixatleastpartlyFrenchcantons)andtheSwisscross. Thelanguagedistinctionisreinforcedby"secondary"qualities,includingascribedpreferencesin eating,drinking,dressing,hairstyle,games,sports,andpoliticalandideologicalorientation.R. AnlikerandV.Schmid(1980)foundimportantdifferencesinGermanandFrenchhistorytextbooks forprimaryschools.H.FischerandU.P.Trier(1962),usingthesemanticdifferentialtechnique, statethesamethingregardingtheautoandheterostereotypesofthesetwolanguagecommunities. Infederalvotesonquestionsthathavenothingtodowithlanguage,theRomancecantonsare frequentlyoutvotedbytheGerman 524

Swissmajority.ButthefactthattheoriginalcantonsoftenjointheRomanceregionsadvises cautionperhapstheanticentralistorientationofbothregionsismoreimportantthanthelanguage. A.CharpillozandG.GrimmGobat(1982:70)citetheanswersontheattitudinalresearchquestion astowhethertheinformantsdefinethemselvesprimarilyasinhabitantsoftheircommune,the region(canton),thelanguagearea,orofSwitzerlandasawhole.TwentyninepercentoftheFrench Swissinformantsnamedexclusivelyorinteraliathelanguagecommunity,16percentofthe German,and14percentoftheItalianSwissinformants.Thesameauthorsquote(p.3following) numerousresultsofmarketingorientatedopinionresearchasevidencefortheexistenceofethnic differencesbetweentheSwisslanguagecommunities.Forexample:47percentoftheGermanSwiss butonly27percentoftheFrenchSwissclaimtospendtheirvacationsinSwitzerland;44percentof theFrench,33percentoftheGerman,and26percentoftheItalianSwissusedeodorants;and42 percentofFrenchSwisswomenuseeyeshadowversus22percentoftheirGermanSwisspeers.On theotherhand,7.8percentoftheLucernepostofficeworkerswerelikelytocallinsick,asagainst 14.15percentatGenevaand18percentinTicino.Finally,55percentoftheGermanSwissfindthat thearmyisnecessary,butonly22percentoftheirFrenchconfederates. Thecomprehensivecomparativestudyofsecondlanguageuse,proficiency,andattitudesofhigh schoolstudentsinthetwo"bilingual"SwisscitiesofBielandFribourg(Kolde,1981)confirmsthe viewsquotedabove. WhenZurichhighschoolstudentswereaskedbyaGenevanstudentworkingonacontroltestto choosefromanunorderedlistofadjectivesdenotingpositiveandnegativesocialfeatures,those whichtheyregardedastypicalforFrenchorGermanSwiss,onestudentrefusedtocomply,giving thefollowingcomment(mytranslation):"InthislistIfindonlynegativewordsfortheGerman Swiss,andpositiveonesfortheFrenchSwiss.ThereforeImarkedonlythelatter,"namely:sociable, tolerant,liberalminded,emancipated,artistic,dynamic,voluble,lively,sociallyconscious,and,in brackets,politicallyontheleft.Thisimpliesthat,inalongandunorderedlistofadjectivesthis GermanSwissstudentfindsonlynegativefeaturesforherowngroupandonlypositiveonesforthe "others."Sheprotestsagainstan"unfair"assignment:astrikingexampleofprojectednegative heterostereotypes.(SheknewthatthislisthadbeenestablishedinGeneva!) Thedifferentlanguageandethnicattitudeswouldalsoshowupveryclearlyinacomparativestudy oflexicalinterferencesandborrowinginbothdirections,especiallyincontactareaslikeBieland Fribourg.SwissGermancontainsmoreRomanceelementsthanviceversa,and,evenmore revealingly,differentdomains,lexicalfields,andsociostylisticlevelsareaffected.Comparethe Germanismspoutzer(toclean),schlaguer(tobeat),peteler(tobeg),snapser(tobooze)inSwiss French,versustouchiere(totouch),remplaciere(toreplace),anddefraichiere(tofade)inSwiss German(Kolde,1981:15759).Thesituation 525

ofRomanshistotallydifferentinsofarastheinterferencewithandborrowingfromGermanvia tourism,industrialization,themassmedia,andschoolinghasattainedalevelthatisregardedby manyobserversasarealdangerforRomansh.Themassmediaareoftencriticizedfor exaggerating,even"creating"theproblems,bypresentingissuesinapolemicalandconsciously biasedformandbystressingtheshortcomingsandconflictsinsteadofmentioningthenumerous positiveexamplesofmutualunderstanding,tolerance,andnationalsolidarity.Indeed,the harshnessandbiasednessofacaricaturepublishedrepeatedlyunderthetitle"Greziviol"can hardlybesurpassed:theoutlineofSwitzerlandisfilledwithfourtangledfigures:thebrutal GermanSwissdoingviolencetotheinnocentandshocked"Romande,"sittingontheheadofthe groaningItalianSwissandhisheavypawonthedefenselessRetoroman.Eventhoughthe strengthoftheSwissnationalidentityisunquestionable,theseinterlingualorinterethnictensions arenottakenlightly.Formanyyears,nationalinstitutionslikeProHelvetiahavebeensupporting culturalactivitiesthatpromotemutualunderstandingacrosslanguageborders.In1980agreat conferencewasorganizedatMontreuxunderthepatronageofthefederalgovernmentonthe question:"OneorfourSwitzerlands?"Atthemoment,animpressiveprojectoftheNational ResearchAgency(Nationalfond)on"culturalpluralismandnationalidentity"isinpreparation, thewarningexampleofBelgiumoftenbeingquotedasaneffectivebugbear.Twocaveatsshould concludetheobservationsmadeinthissection: 1. Thetendencytoattributeallsocialconflictssolelytothe"language"factoriswidespreadin allmultilingualsocietiesbutshouldnotbefolloweduncriticallybythelinguist. 2. Inkeepingwithawidespreadhumanattitude(laudatiotemporisacti),thecurrentsituation isnormallyinterpretedasatimeofincreasinginterlingualtensionsandethnicawareness. Thisviewisnotnecessarilycorrect.H.H.Kerr(1974:22),comparingthesenseof "cantonal,linguisticandSwissidentitybylanguageandagecohort,"comestotheoptimistic conclusion"thatnationbuildinginSwitzerlandhadonlybeguntotakerootattheturnof thecenturyandisstillunderway." TheGermanSwissDiglossiaorInternalBilingualism AllGermanSwissusetheirverydifferentlocal(orregional)Alemannicdialects,eveninformal situationswherefiftyyearsagoonlytheuseofstandardGermanwasconceivable.Formerly, GermanSwitzerlandwasregardedasoneofthebestexamplesofdiglossia,withthree determiningfactors:themedium(spokenversuswritten),communicationwithinthegroupor withforeigners,andformalversusinformalsituation(Schwarzenbach,1969).Todayweare witnessingacleartrendtoward"oralbilingualism"(Ris,1979:56)or,atleast,anexclusively mediumdetermineddiglossia(Haas,1978:106),atrendwithfarreachingconsequencesin severalrespects: 526

 1 Theoraluseofdialectin . situationsthatarestrongly determinedbywritten languageuse(administration, science,etc.)favorssyntactic andlexicalinterference.Asa result,utterancesare,in extremecases,dialectalonly intheirphonetics,butfullof syntacticandlexicalelements ofStandardGerman,atrend thatmeetslouddisapproval fromdialectpurists. 2 Formerly,twoGermanSwiss . speakingratherdifferent dialectscouldavoidtherisks ofinterdialectal communication(reduced mutualintelligibilityand, perhaps,evocationofnegative interdialectalattitudes;see Werlen,forthcoming)bythe choiceofStandardGermanas thelinguafranca.Todaythe speakersofmarginalSwiss dialectsmusteitheracquirea second"subsidiary"dialectfor interdialectalcommunication, ortheysimplyavoidtheir extremedialectforms(Haas, 1982:110).Atanyrate,the marginalSwissdialectsare undergoingimportantchanges. Thisdoesnotmeanthata moreorlessuniform"national dialect"iscomingintobeing (Haas,1978,versusZimmer, 1977),butneverthelessthe GermanSwisshavealready coinedahighlypejorative nameforthisnonexistent variety: "Oltenbahnhofschwytzerdtsch ." 3 Themostserious . consequencesofthis developmentnodoubtconcern theoralcommunicationof Thereare,ofcourse,severalhistoricalreasonsforthisrecent advanceofdialectuse,forexample,the"Geistige Landesverteidigung"(nationaldefensewithculturalweapons) duringtheThirdReich,butactuallythefollowingthree reasonsarenodoubtmostimportant(Schwarzenbachand Sitta,1983): First,thegeneralrelativedecreaseofwritinginprivateand printinmasscommunicationfavorstheuseofdialectsasthe traditionaloralvarietiestothedetrimentofthewrittenforms: radio,TV,andtelephonearepartlyreplacingnewspaper,book, andletter.Furthermore,Haas(1982:107)observesa "universal"historicaltendencytowardthe"lower,""more informal,""moreoral"styleeveninwrittenlanguageuse. Second,sincetheSchwytzerdtschdialectsarethesymbolof GermanSwissidentity,thereal"mother"tongues,theiruse createsawarm,intimateatmosphere,andtheirregional diversitysymbolizesthefederaliststructureofSwisssocial andpoliticallife.Finally,dialectistakentobe"democratic" becausetheGermanSwissaresimplynotawareoftheexisting socialstratificationoftheirdialects,andtheirmarkedphonetic structureisevenrelatedtothepositiveautostereotypeofthe GermanSwiss"roughdiamond"(Mrikofer,1836;Greyerz, 1933:246).Onthecontrary,StandardGermanis,forthe GermanSwiss,thelanguageofcoldrationalityandthe foreign,frighteningworld.Third,especiallyformanyyoung GermanSwiss,dialectuseisaninstrumentofsocialpolitics,a symbolofprogressiveness,whereasStandardGermanstands fortheestablishment,constraints,institutions,andauthority.It isthe"fathertongue"ofschool,church,andcourt. Asaresultofthisextremelyhighprestigeofdialect,the northernSwissboundaryhasbecomea"pragmaticlanguage border"(Ris,1978):nearlythesameAlemannicdialectis usedonthetwobanksoftheRhine,buttheconditionsofits usearetotallydifferent.EventheSwissvarietyofStandard German,the 527

GermanSwisswith interlocutorsfromother Germanspeakingnations, especiallywithnonGerman confederateswholearnonly StandardGermanatschool. Questia,apartofGale,CengageLearning.www.questia.com

socalledSchweizerschriftdeutsch,differsclearlyfromtheotherregionalvarietiesofStandard Germaninphonetics,morphology,semantics,and,moststrikingly,initslexicon.These peculiaritiesareevencultivatedasanothersymbolofGermanSwissidentity,whereas,revealingly enough,theFrenchSwisstermfranaisfdralisusedtomockthebadFrenchofthe predominantlyGermanspeakingfederaladministration.TheFrenchpatoishasnoprestigevalueat allfortheFrenchSwiss:"Patoisisgoodforstayingatthetailofacow,"quotesWeinreich (1952:162). TheattitudesoftheItalianSwisstotheirstandardvarietyfurnishaninstructiveanalogytothe GermanSwisssituation.Inhisverycriticalpilotstudyentitled"Linguematrigna,Italianoe dialettonellaSvizzeraitaliana"(stepmotherlanguage:ItaliananddialectinItalianSwitzerland),S. Bianconi(1980)demonstrateshowStandardItalianacts(oristreated)asastepmother,notaccepted byitsItalianSwissspeakers.Atfirstglance,thefactsreportedinthischapterseemonlyto complicateSwisslanguagecontact.Butwhenonelooksagain,onerealizesthattheyalsoincrease thevalueofFrenchasameansofinterlingualcommunicationandthushelptostabilizeSwiss multilingualism. SECONDSWISSLANGUAGEPROFICIENCYANDSCHOOLING F.Kainz'(1965)highoverallevaluationofindividualbilingualismamongtheSwisshasalready beenquotedandquestionedintheintroduction.W.B.Simon(1969:18)hasmorepreciseideas: "TheGerman,French,andItalianspeakingcitizensoftheSwissnationsimplytakeitforgranted thattheeducatedSwisshavetobecomefluentinlanguagesotherthantheirown,especiallyifthey aspiretoacareerintheserviceoftheirgovernmentorintheirschoolsystem."H.Kloss (1966/67:11)ismoreskepticalandassumesthat,apartfromthediglossiaoftheGermanSwiss,the individualSwissisnomorebilingualthantheDutchortheScandinavian,andperhapsevenlessso. TelevisionpracticeconfirmsKloss'sview:wheneverinGermanSwisstelevisionnewsapersonality isinterviewedinFrench,afterafewFrenchwordsasimultaneoustranslationintoGermanbegins,to thegreatirritationoflistenerswithsomeknowledgeofFrench.Fluentproficiencyinasecond nationallanguageisnotanecessaryconditionforhighpositionsinfederalpolitics,asisrevealed whenmembersofthefederalgovernmentdaretospeakitpublicly. EvenatBiel,theSwissbilingualcityparexcellence,thereisnobilingualnewspaper.Anadvertising sheetwitheditorial,bearingtheambitioustitle"Biel/Bienne"andpublishedwiththeexplicit intentionofpromotingthemutualunderstandingofallcoexistinglanguagecommunities,contains manyarticlestwice,inGermanandinFrench,becausethisadvertiserisnotonlydistributedinthe city,butalsointheofficiallyunilingualsuburbs.Thisisatleasttheexplanationgivenbya responsiblejournalist.Severalyearsago,theprogramsofalittle 528

progressivetheateratBielwerebilingualinsuchawaythattheypresupposedabilingualreader. Butthiswasamuchcitedexception. Arepresentativesurvey(Scope,1973)revealedthat22percentoftheGermanSwisswithonly primaryschoolingclaimed"someproficiency"inFrench,and73percentofthosewhohave attendedhighschool.Theoverallaveragewas67percent,asopposedto52percentoftheFrench SwisswhoclaimedsomeknowledgeofGerman.Ofcourse,resultsofsuchselfassessmentmust beinterpretedcarefully.Thedifferencesbetweenthegroupsmayalsobeduetodifferentimplicit normsof"proficiency":fewerinformantswithauniversitydegreepretendedto"know"another languagethanthosewithonlysecondaryschooling. "Proficiencyinothernationallanguages"means,forthemajorityofGermanandFrenchSwiss, someknowledgeofoneothernationallanguageinadditiontothemothertongueFrench, respectively,German.Thisistheonlylinguisticconditionforfederalrecognitionoffinalhigh schoolexaminations(Maturitt).AsthisobligatoryforeignlanguageisnormallyGermanin FrenchSwitzerlandandFrenchinGermanSwitzerland,Italianisrarelytaughtasaforeign languageinSwissschools,andRomanshnowhere.OnlytheItalian(andRetoroman)Swissmust learntwoforeignnationallanguagesatschool,whichpresentsanotherserioushandicapforthe "real"Swissminorities.AsGermanisthegenerallanguageofinstructioninallGrisonhigh schools,theRetoromanstudentsareevenforcedtopracticeRomanshGermanbilingualism. English,withitshighprestigeasaworldlanguage,isgainingground(oftencriticized)asa linguafranca,evenforinternalSwisslanguagecontact,andeasilypushesItalianoutoffavor amongthenonItalianSwiss.TheGenevoiswouldfarpreferEnglishastheirfirstforeign languagetotheveryunpopularGerman(Allaletal.,1978:46),butsuchademandgoesagainst theprinciplesofSwisslanguagepoliticsandhasthereforealwaysbeenrejecteduptonow. EvenintheFrenchGermanbilingualcityofBiel,thesecondlanguageistaughttotherespective otherlanguagegroup,inexactlythesamewayasanyforeignlanguage:wheretheterritory principledoesnotwork,thestrictlyunilingualschoolmustplaythe"isolatingrole":"Inthe unilingualsituationit[theschool]helpsmaintainaconservative,standardizedlanguage;inthe bilingualsituationitsupports,inaddition,thenormsofthelanguageagainstuncheckedforeign borrowing"(Weinreich,1953:88).Inlanguagecontactareas,everythingisdonetopreventthe childrenfrombecoming"coordinate"bilingualsandfromdevelopingbilingualnorms.The extremelynegativeattitudetowardbalancedindividualbilingualismasa"pathologicalstate" causingmentaldisorientation(anomie)(Epstein,1915)isstillratherwidespread.Thenearerto thelanguageborder,thestrongertheofficialresistancetoalltypesof"bilingualeducation"(von Greyerz,1928;Baumgartner,1932).ItisatEinsiedeln,farfromthelanguageborder,thatPater Jungoarguesinfavorofabilingualeducationforthechildrenofforeignworkers(Jobin,1979). Muchisdone,ontheotherhand,topromotemutualunderstandingofthe 529

languagecommunitiesbyschoolexchange.TheDirectoroftheSwissConferenceofCantonal Educationhasrecentlycreatedateamofexpertscalled"Landessprache2"inordertopromotethe teachingofasecondnationallanguage,becauseD.Borel(1973:3)isnotcorrectwhenhestatesthat ingeneralintheprimaryschoolsofallcantonsasecondnationallanguageistaughtfromthefifth gradeon.Evenin1984,thiswasnotyetthecaseatGeneva,forexample,whereformerlyGerman beganintheseventhgrade.Thisintensificationofforeignlanguagelearninghasevenaroused minorityfearsinGeneva.SometimesRousseauiscitedinsupportofthisattitudebecauseheargues inEmilethatforeignlanguagesshouldnotbelearnedbeforethemothertongueisreally consolidatedattheageofthirteen.InsixcantonsofinnerSwitzerland,theplanningfortheearlier introductionofsecondnationallanguageteachinghadnotyetbegunatallin1982. AsaconsequenceofthehighprestigeofdialectinGermanSwitzerlanddiscussedabove,many GermanSwissteacherscannotresistthetemptationtouseitwiththeirpupilsnotonlyduring recess,butmoreandmoreduringlessonstoo.Inthatwaytheycanbenefitfromitspositiveeffects onthesocialatmosphereintheclassroom,evenagainsttheexplicitordersoftheeducation authorities.Inthelongerterm,theywillthusreinforcetheisolationoftheGermanSwiss,whowill havemoreandmoredifficultiesindiscussionswithGermanpeersfromGermany,forexample (Thomke,1978),andwithFrenchorItalianconfederateswholearnonlyStandardGermanat school.Themotivationofthelattertolearnthissupposedlydifficultlanguageissurelynot reinforcedbythefrequentexperiencethatGermanSwisspartnersprefertospeaktothem,ifnot their"incomprehensible"dialect,ratherEnglishorFrench,butonnoaccountStandardGerman,the unbeloved"semiforeignlanguage"(MaxFrisch).TheideaofteachingSchwytzerdtschatFrench Swissschoolsinsteadof,or,morerealistically,inadditiontoStandardGerman,runsintonumerous problems,eveniflimitedtothemostmodestaim,to"habituatetheear"tounderstandthemain Alemannicdialects(MllerandWertenschlag,1984).M.Zwicky(1978)goesmuchfurtherand proposesteachingtheactiveuseofanormalizedkoinedialect,amethodthatisrejectedbymost GermanSwiss(Merkt,1981). RESEARCH Inthisfinalsection,somemajortrendsinthehistoryofSwisslanguagecontactresearchandsome desiderataforfuturestudieswillbepointedout,withoutanyclaimtocompletenessforeither. Foralongtime,Swisscontactlinguisticsstoodintheshadowofthegreattraditionofalemannic dialectologyanditspioneeringenterprises,theSchweizerischesIdiotikon,theSprachatlasder deutschenSchweiz,andnumerousspecializedstudies(forageneralsurvey,seeLtscher,1983).The threeothernationaldialectdictionariesarecurrentlyatdifferentstagesofrealization.Thetitleof 530

F.J.StalderbookLandessprachenderSchweiz[RegionalLanguagesofSwitzerland,1819]is misleadingbecauseitisactuallyadescriptionofGermanSwissdialectsonly,withsome Romansh,French,andItaliandialecttextsintheappendix.Thus,thefirstimportantworkonour subjectdatesfrom1891and1899.Intwovolumes,J.Zimmerligivesadetaileddescriptionofthe situationontheFrenchGermanlanguageborderinSwitzerlandatthattime,basedonpersonal observations.Justaftertheturnofthecentury,E.Tappoletcomparedthedialectsituationof FrenchandGermanSwitzerland.H.Weilenmann'sworkof1925canbeconsideredareactionto theinterlingualtensionsbefore(Mller,1977)andduringWorldWarI(duBois,1983).Before andduringWorldWarII,peacefulSwisscoexistencewascalledupinseveralsmallpopular articlesbySwissauthors(Burckhardt,1938;Meyer,1939;vonWartburg,1940;Thilo,1941), followedlaterbyvonPlanta(1957),Bernhard(1968),andVouga(1978).Atfirstglance,the tonemayseemtohavebecomemorepolemicandaggressiveinrecentyears(Charpillozetal., 1982;Lugon,1983),butasAndr(1944)shows,thistraditionisratherold. Swisslanguagerightsandjurisdictionhavebeentreated,underdifferentaspects,byHegnauer (1947),Schppi(1971),andViletta(1978),andtheimportantdocumentoftheChartedes langues(1969)canonlybementioned.Severalforeignsociologistsandpoliticalscientistshave studiedthe"caseofSwitzerland,"amongthemKohn(1956),McRae(1964),Keech(1972), Kerr(1974),andSchmid(1982). Weinreich'sdoctoraldissertationof1952isstillunsurpassed:sinceWeinreich,nootherauthor hasdescribedthesociological,psychological,andlinguisticeffectsoflanguagecontactin Switzerlandsothoroughlyandrigorously,andhisbibliographyremainsatreasuretroveeven today.TheaimsofHeye(1970)investigationsinTicinomultilingualismweremorelimited, whereasCathomas(1977)wasthefirsttostudyindividualbilingualisminChuronasound linguisticbasis,followedbyFurer(1981)withamoreexplicitpoliticalorientation.The comparativestudyofKolde(1981)andtheprojectofLdiandPy(Ldi,1981;LdiandPy, 1984)tocompareSwissGermanandSpanishimmigrantstoNeuchatelcomplementoneanother inmanymethodologicalrespects. ThestandardworkoninternallanguagecontactinGermanSwitzerlandisstillthatof Schwarzenbach(1969);Ris(1978,1979)elucidatedthesociopsychologicalbackgroundofthe uniquepositionofSwissGermandialects.ThelatestmonographonSwissStandardGermanis thatofPanizzolo(1982),whiletheRomanceelementsinthisidiomwerecollectedbySchilling( 1970).NocomparablestudiesexistforSwissFrench,butonlysmallarticles(Tappolet,1913; Jaberg,1917;Bodinier,1960;Schliessl,1965;Burger,1979;Knecht,1979,1982).Theonlybook thathasbeenrecentlypublished(Hadacek,1983)ismorepopularandjournalisticthan scientific.Tworelevantresearchprojectsareunderway:thecomparisonoftheattitudesof SwedishimmigrantstoNorwayandofGermanimmigrantstoGermanSwitzerland(Koller, 1980),andanotherabout 531

thepresentuseofSwissStandardGermaninpublicdomains(SchwarzenbachandSitta,1983). TheproblemsofinternallanguagecontactinItalianSwitzerlandweretreatedbyLurati(1976), andBianconi(1980).DifferenthistoricalaspectsofSwisslanguagecontactwerestudiedby Sonderegger(1963,1977,1982),BernerHrbin(1974),andBilligmeier(1979).Finally,two verydifferentrecentcollectionsshouldbementioned.Theone(Schlpfer,1982),publishedonly inGerman,withaFrenchtranslationinpreparation,ismorecomprehensiveandsystematic,with amorepopularorientation.Theother(duBois,1983),publishedonlyinFrench,contains severalspecializedandpartlyhistoricalarticles.Inspiteofthisimpressivelistofnamesandtitles, alotofopenquestionsanddatagapsarewaitingforpersistentinvestigation,especiallyinthe followingthreefields: 1. Thedescriptionofhistoricallanguagecontactinformersubjectterritories(Vaud,Ticino), andoftheoriginandformationoflanguageandethnicattitudesandawarenessduringthe lasttwocenturies. 2. Thecomparativestudyofcurrentproficiencyin,useof,andattitudestothevarietiesofthe nationallanguageinalllanguageareas. 3. Longitudinalanalysesthatshouldpermitustofindoutwhetherinterlingualrelationsand attitudesarecurrentlychanging,and,ifso,inwhichdirection. Currently,a"SwissCenterforInterdisciplinaryResearchonLanguagesandCulturesinContact" isonthepointofbeingfounded.Theprovisionalaccommodationaddressisasfollows:Prof. GeorgesLdi,RomanischesSeminarderUniversitt,CH4051Basel,Stapfelberg7. FINALREMARKS Inthissurvey,thecommonproblemsofthefournationallanguagecommunitiesofSwitzerland havebeendescribed.Therefore,inconclusiontheextremevarietyoftheirrespectivesituations shouldbestressedoncemore:fromtheFrenchminoritywhichis,insomerespects,a"hidden majority,"totheRetoromansandtheparadoxicaltasktopreservetheirlanguageagainstthevital interestsofmanyofitsspeakerswhotend,forpracticalreasons,toshifttoGerman:"Tosave Romanshagainstitsownwill"(Grisons:poursauverleromanchemalgrlui)wasarevealing headlineintheJournaldeGenve(October21,1980). Nothinghasbeensaidaboutthe15percentofthepresentpopulationwhoarenotSwisscitizens andnearlyentirelyforeignworkers.TheirlargeRomancemajoritystrengthensthethirdnational languagecommunityonlynumerically.ThoseamongthemwholiveinGermanFrenchcontact areasandwhoassimilateinthesecondgenerationthusenlargethelocalFrenchcommunity becausetheirchildrenarenormallyschooledinthislanguage.Butsuchlocalshiftscannot 532

affecttheoverallstatisticalGermanFrenchstabilityonaregionalandnationalscale. ACKNOWLEDGMENT IamgratefultomycolleaguesLilianeHaegemandePauwandNeilRobertForsythfortheirhelp inpreparingthischapter. BIBLIOGRAPHY AllalL.K.,C.Davaud,andA.FetePadlina.1978.Attitudesl'garddel'apprentissagede l'allemand.EnquteauprsdeslvesdestroisdgrsduCycled'orientation.Genve: Dpartementdel'instructionpublique. AndrP.1944.Silenceoblig.Neuchtel,Paris. AnlikerR.,andV.Schmid.1980."Freiundaufewigfrei!PolitischeIdentittimSchweizer GeschichtsbuchderVolksschule."BulletindesSoziologischenInstitutsderUniversittZrich. Sondemummer. BaumgartnerH.1932."EinzweisprachigesGymnasium?"BielerJahrbuch6:92102. BernerHurbinA.1974.PsycholinguistikderRomanismenimlterenSchweizerdeutsch:Die EntlehnungsmechanismeninQuellendes15.und16.Jahrhunderts.Frauenfeld,Stuttgart:Huber. BernhardR.1968.AlemannischwelscheSprachsorgenundKulturfragen.MitBeitrgenvonF. DrrenmattundA.Richli.Frauenfeld:SchriftendesdeutschschweizerischenSprachvereins,3. BianconiS.1980.Linguamatrigna.ItalianoedialettonellaSvizzeraitaliana.Bologna:I1 mulino. BilligmeierR.H.1979.ACrisisinSwissPluralism.Oxford:HoldanBooks. BodinierCP.1960."LefranaisfaceauxgermanismesenSuisseromande."Vieetlangage97: 18287. BorelD.1973."EssaisurlesquestionslinguistiquesenSuisse."Revuemilitairesuisse118:1 10. BuchmannW.1963."DiedeutschfranzsischeSprachgrenzeimSchweizerJuraimZeitraum 18601950.RegioBasiliensis."HeftefrjurassischeundoberrheinischeLandeskunde4:2. BurckhardtW.1938."DasVerhltnisderSpracheninderSchweiz.Deutschschweizerischer Sprachverein."JahrlicheRundschaupp.2436. BurgerM.1979."LatraditionlinguistiquevernaculaireenSuisseromande:lespatois."InLe franaishorsdeFrance,ed.A.Valdman.Paris:HonoreChampion,pp.25969. CamartinI.1982."DieBeziehungenzwischendenschweizerischenSprachregionen."InDie

viersprachigeSchweiz,ed.R.Schlpfer,pp.30151. CathomasB.1977.ErkundungenzurZweisprachigkeitderRtoromanen.Einesoziolinguistische undpragmatischeLeitstudie.Bern,Frankfurt:Lang. .1981."DieEinstellungenderRtoromanenzumSchwyzerttsch."BulletinCILA33,105 117. CharpillozA.,andG.GrimmGobat.1982.LaRomandiedomine.Lausanne:Favre. Chartedeslangues.Sprachencharta.1969.Fribourg,Suisse. 533

DavaudC.,andL.Allal.1979.Effetsdefacteursscolairesetextrascolairessurlesattitudesdes lvesal'garddel'apprentissagedel'allemand.Genve:Dpartmentdel'instructionpublique. DicziunariRumantschGrischun.(1939foll.)Chur. DrigH.R.,andChr.Reichenau.1982.2sprachigeSchweiz?ZustandundZukunftdes RtoromanischenunddesItalienischeninGraubnden.AbklrungenundEmpfehlungeneiner Arbeitsgruppe.Bern,Dissentis. duP.Bois1983."MytheetralitdufosspendantlaPremireGuerremondiale."InUnionet DivisiondesSuisses:LesrelationsentreAlmaniques,RomandsetTessinoisauxXIXEetXXe sicles,ed.P.duBois.Lausanne:Editionsdel'Aire,pp.6591. EpsteinI.1915."Lapenseetlapolyglossie.Essaipsychologiqueetdidactique."Ph.D.diss., Lausanne:LibrairiePayot. FischerH.,andU.P.Trier.1962.DasVerhltniszwischenDeutschschweizerundWestschweizer. EinesozialpsychologischeUntersuchung.Bern,Stuttgart:Huber. FurerJJ.1981."DerToddesRomanischen,derAnfangvomEndefrdieSchweiz."Chur. GlossairedespatoisdelaSuisseromand.(1924foll.).Neuchtel,Paris/Genve. GreyerzO.von.1928."Sprachkultur.GedankenberdieSprachpflichtendesDeutschschweizers inzweisprachigemGebiet."BielerJahrbuch,pp.89100. .1933.Sprache,Dichtung,Heimat.Bern. HaasW.1978."Widerden'Nationaldialekt'."ZeitschriftfrDialektologieundLinguistik45:62 68. .1981."Entredialecteetlangue:l'exampleduSchwyzerttsch."BulletinCila33,2241. .1982."SprachgeschichtlicheGrundlagen,diedeutschsprachigeSchweiz."InDie viersprachigeSchweiz,ed.R.Schlpfer,pp.21160. HadacekC.1983.Lesuisseromandtelqu'onleparle.LexiqueRomandFranais.Lausanne: Favre. HegnauerC.1947.DasSprachenrechtderSchweiz.Zrich. HeyeJ.B.1970."ASociolinguisticInvestigationofMultilingualismintheCantonofTicino, Switzerland."Ph.D.diss.UniversityofMichigan. HuntJ.A.1980."EducationandBilingualismontheLanguageFrontierinSwitzerland." JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment1:1739. JabergK.1917.DiealemannischenLehnwrterindenMundartenderfranzsischenSchweiz.

Sonntagsblattdes'Bund.'Bern50.1. JobinJ.F.1979."EntretienaveclepreMichaelJungo."Zomar12:4042. KainzF.1965."PsychologiederSprache."Vol.5,1.PsychologiederEinzelsprachen.Stuttgart, Ferd.Enke. KeechW.R.1972."LinguisticDiversityandPoliticalConflict:SomeObservationsBasedon FourSwissCantons."ComparativePolitics44:387404. KerrH.H.,Jr.1974.Switzerland:SocialCleavagesandPartisanConflict.London,Beverly Hills.(SageProfessionalPapersinContemporaryPoliticalSociology,1:06002). KlossH.1966/67."TypesofMultilingualCommunities:ADiscussionofTenVariables."In ExplorationinSociolinguistics,ed.S.Lieberson.Bloomington,Ind.,pp.717. KnechtP.1979."LefranaisenSuisseromande:aspectslinguistiquesetsociolinguis" 534

tiques."InLefranaishorsdeFrance,edA.Valdman.Paris:HonorChampion,pp.249258. .1982."DiefranzsischsprachigeSchweiz."InDieviersprachigeSchweiz,ed.R.Schlpfer,pp. 161210. KohnH.1956.NationalismandLiberty:TheSwissExample.London:AllenandUnwin. KoldeG.1981.SprachkontakteingemischtsprachigenStdten.VergleichendeUntersuchungenber VoraussetzungenundFormensprachlicherInteraktionverschiedensprachigerJugendlicherinden SchweizerStdtenBiel/BienneundFribourg/Freiburgi.Ue.Wiesbaden:Steiner(ZDLBeihefte.37). .1983."Rapportotraapprendimentodellalinguaesviluppodell'identit:aspettidipsicologia socialenellapoliticascolasticadellelingueinregionimistilingui."InAttidelconvegno internazionale:L'apprendimentoprecocedellasecondalingua.Bolzano,May1315,1982.Bolzano (Educazionebilingue8),pp.16385. KollerW.1980."ZumSprachverhaltenvoninNorwegenlebendenSchwedenundvoninder DeutschschweizlebendenDeutschen."InSprachkontaktundSprachkonflikt,ed.H.P.Nelde. Wiesbaden:Steiner,pp.48792(ZKLBeiheft.32). KhnP.1980."DeutscheSpracheinderSchweiz."InLexikonderGermanistischenLinguistik,ed. H.P.Althausetal.2ded.Tubingen:Niemeyer,pp.53136. LtscherA.1983.Schweizerdeutsch.Geschichte,Dialekte,Gebrauch.Frauenfeld,Stuttgart:Huber. LdiG.1981."MigrationintemeetintgrationlinguistiqueenSuisse."InEtremigrant,ed.A. Gretleretal.Berne,Frankfort:M.Lang,pp.12537. LdiG.,andB.Py.1984.ZweisprachigdurchMigration.EinfhrungindieErforschungder MehrsprachigkeitamBeispielzweierZuwanderergruppeninNeuenburg/Schweiz.Tbingen: Niemeyer. LugonC.1983.QuandlaSuisseFranaises'eveillera.Genve:EditionsPerretGentil. LuratiO.1976.DialettoetitalianoregionalenellaSvizzeraitaliana.Lugano. LutzF.,andJ.C.Arquint.1982."DiertoromanischeSchweiz."InDieviersprachigeSchweiz,ed. R.Schlpfer,pp.253300. MatthewsR.J.H.1979."BilingualisminaSwissCanton.LanguageChoiceinTicino."In SociolinguisticStudiesinLanguageContact:MethodsandCases,edW.F.MackeyandJ.Ornstein. TheHague,pp.42531. McRaeK.D.1964.Switzerland:ExampleofCulturalCoexistence.Toronto:CanadianInstituteof InternationalAffairs. MerkelbachChr.1979."CommunautslinguistiquesenSuisse:queldialogue?"Zomar12:3238. MerktG.1981."Pouruneintgrationdesdialectesalmaniquesdansl'enseignementdel'allemand enSuisseromande."BulletinCila33:7386. MeyerK.1939.DiemehrsprachigeSchweiz.GeschichtlicheVoraussetzungendeseidgenssischen Sprachenftiedens.Zrich. MrikoferJ.C.1836.DieschweizerischeMundartimVerhltniszurhochdeutschenSchriftsprache, ausdemGesichtspunktederLandesbeschaftenheit,derSprache,desUnterrichts,derNationalitt undderLiteratur.Frauenfeld:Chr.Beyel.(Anonymous.) MllerH.P.1977.DieschweizerischeSprachenftagevor1914.EinehistorischeUntersuchungber dasVerhltniszwischenDeutschundWelschbiszum1.Weltkrieg.Wiesbaden:Steiner. 535

MllerM.,andL.Wertenschlag.1984.Losemol.Schweizerdeutschverstehen.Berlin: Langenscheidt. PanizzoloP.1982.DieschweizerischeVariantedesHochdeutschen.Marburg:Deutsche Dialektgeographie108. PichardA.1978.LaRomandien'existepas.Sixportraitspolitiques:Fribourg,Genve,Jura, Neuchtel,Valais,Vaud.Lausanne. PlantaJ.M.von.1957.UnsereSpracheundwir.VondervielsprachigenSchweizzumSprachziel desAbendlandes.Frauenfeld:Huber. RisR.1978."SozialpsychologiederDialekteundihrerSprecher."InGrundlageneiner dialektorientiertenSprachdidaktik,edU.Ammonetal.Weinheim:Basel,pp.93115. .1979."DialekteundEinheitsspracheinderdeutschenSchweiz."InternationalJournalof theSociologyofLanguage21:4161. RubattelChr.1976."Recherchessurleslanguesencontact."Etudesenlinguistiqueapplique, N.S.,21:2032. SchppiP.1971."DerSchutzsprachlicherundkonfessionellerMinderheitenimRechtvonBund undKantonen.DasProblemdesMinderheitenschutzes."Ph.D.diss.,Zrich. SchillingR.1970.RomanischeElementeimSchweizerhochdeutschen.Mannheim: BibliographischesInstitut(DudenBeitrge.38). SchlpferR.,ed.1982.DieviersprachigeSchweiz.Zrich,Koln:Benziger. SchliesslA.1965."LeFranaisenSuisseromande.Calquesdel'allemandetromandismes pourfendre."VieetLangage158:26366. SchmidC.1982."Diversity,NationalIdentityandPoliticalSocializationinSwitzerland." InternationalJournalofPoliticalEducation5:5774. SchwarzenbachR.1969.DieStellungderMundartinderdeutschsprachigenSchweiz.Studien zumSprachbrauchderGegenwart.Frauenfeld:Huber.(Beitrgezurschweizerdeutschen Mundartforsch.17.) SchwarzenbachR.,andH.Sitta.1983."MundartundHochspracheinderdeutschenSchweiz." BulletinCila38:6271. SchweizerischesIdiotikon.WrterbuchderschweizerdeutschenSprache.(1881foll.)Frauenfeld. Scope.1973.DieFremdsprachenkenntnissederSchweizer.Reprsentativerhebung.Luzern. SimonW.B.1969."Multilingualism,AComparativeStudy."InStudiesinMultilingualism,ed.N. Anderson.Leyden,pp.1125.

SondereggerS.1963."VolksundSprachgrenzeninderSchweizimFrhmittelalter.Mit besondererBercksichtigungderBurgundischalemannischenGrenze.Dersprachgeschichtliche Aspekt."SchweizerischeZeitschriftfrGeschichte13:493534. .1977."SprachgrenzenundSprachgrenzlandschafteninderSchweiz."Berichtedes12 Intemat.KongressesFrNamenforschung,Bern,1975.Louvain:Peeters,Vol.1,27792. .1982."ZurgeschichtlichenEntwicklungeinesschweizerischenSprachbewusstseinsinder frhenNeuzeit.InnsbruckerBeitrgezurKulturwissenschaft."Germanist.Reihe,Vol.13.Zur SituationdesDeutscheninSdtirol,ed.H.Moser,pp.5161. 536

SprachatlasderdeutschenSchweiz.(1962foll.).Ed.R.Hotzenkcherle,Vols.14.Bern. StalderF.J.1819.DieLandessprachenderSchweizoderSchweizerischeDialektologie,mit kritischenAnmerkungenbeleuchtet.NebstderGleichnissredevondemverlorenenSohneinallen Schweizermundarten.Aarau:Sauerlnder. SteinbergJ.1976.WhySwitzerland?Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. StrickerH.1980."ZumProblemderetappenweisenVerdeutschungUnterrtiens(aus rtoromanischerSicht)."InHistorischebergngeimalemannischenSprachraum.Mnchen,pp. 6777. StrbinE.1976."ZurSchweizerdeutschenUmgangssprache."SchweizerischesArchivfr Volkskunde72:97145. TappoletE.1901."berdenStandderMundarteninderdeutschenundfranzsischenSchweiz." MitteilungenderGesellschaftfrdeutscheSpracheinZrich.Vol.6. .1913."DiealemannischenLehnwrterindenMundartenderfranzsischenSchweiz." KulturhistorischlinguistischeUntersuchung.ProgrammzurRektoratsfeierderUniversittBasel. Basel. ThiloE.1941.Notesurl'galiteetsurl'usagedeslanguesnationalesenSuisse.Lausanne:Roth. ThomkeH.1978."MundartundSchriftspracheinderSchule."SchweizerMonatshefte58:87584. TrmpyH.1955.SchweizerdeutscheSpracheundLiteraturim17.und18.Jahrhundert.Basel: Krebs. VilettaR.1978.AbhandlungzumSprachenrechtmitbesondererBercksichtigungdesRechtsder GemeindenunddesKantonsGraubnden.Vol.1:GrundlagendesSprachenrechts.Zrich.(Zrches StudienzumffentlichenRecht.4.) VocabulariodeidialeuidellaSvizzeraItaliana.(1953foll.)Lugano. VougaJ.P.1978.Romands,Almaniques,Tessinois.Neuchtel:LaBaconnire. WartburgW.von.1940."EntstehungundWesendermehrsprachigenSchweiz."Schweizer Monatshefte20:817. WeilenmannH.1925.DievielsprachigeSchweiz.EineLsungdesNationalittenproblems.Basel, Leipzig:RheinVerlag. WeinreichU.1952."ResearchProblemsinBilingualism.WithSpecialReferencetoSwitzerland." Ph.D.diss.,ColumbiaUniversity. .1953.LanguagesinContact:FindingsandProblems.NewYork. WerlenI.Forthcoming."ZurEinschtzungvonschweizerdeutschenDialekten."InProblemeder schweizerischenDialektologie.Fribourg:Editionsuniversitaires. ZimmerR.1977."DialektNationaldialektStandardsprache.VergleichendeBetrachtungenzum deutschfranzsischenKontaktbereichinderSchweiz,imElsassundinLuxemburg."Zeitschriftfr DialektologieundLinguistik44:14557. ZimmerliJ.1891,1899.DiedeutschfranzsischeSprachgrenzeinderSchweiz.GenevaandBasel: H.Georg. ZinsliP.1964.VomWerdenundWesendermehrsprachigenSchweiz.RckblickundAusblick.Bern. (SchriftendesDeutschschweizerischenSprachvereins1.) ZwickyM.1978.ModrnsSchwyzerttsch.Passepartout.Mthodeaudiovisuelle.Fribourg.

537

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 538

26 BILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATIONINTHEUNITEDSTATES RichardRuiz StudiesoflanguagebehaviorintheUnitedStatesgenerallybeginwithadescriptionofthe linguisticpluralismthatcharacterizesthesociety,andhascharacterizeditfromitsearliestdays. HeinzKloss(1977),forexample,writesofan"Americanbilingualtradition,"bywhichhe meansnotonlythatmanydifferentlanguagecommunitieshavecontributedtothesocialmakeup ofthenation,butalsothattherehasbeenadegreeoftolerancefortheuseofseverallanguages forofficialpurposes(especiallyforschooling,administration,andthecourts).Similarly, ChristinaBrattPaulston(1981),ShirleyBriceHeathandCharlesFerguson(1981),JoshuaA. Fishman(1966),andotherspresentthepictureofalinguisticallydiversenation,withnew languagegroupsbeingabsorbedintothesocietyevenuptothepresentmoment. Suchcharacterizationsservetocombatthecuriousbutpervasivemythofalinguistically monolithicUnitedStates,witheveryonespeakingorintheprocessoflearningtospeakEnglish. Whilewemightagreethatthemisperceptionrestsonhistoricaldistortion,weshouldalso understandthatitrepresentsawidespreadlanguageorientation:howevermuchtheUnitedStates maybecharacterizedasalinguisticallypluralnation,suchpluralismisbothundervaluedand transitory.Tosaythatitisabilingualormultilingualsocietyistomakeadescriptivestatement, notanormativeone,asNancyFairesConklinandMargaretA.Louriesuggest:"Americansmay beapolyglotpeople,speakingmanylanguagesandmanyvarietiesofEnglish.Butforthemost partwehaveconductedourpubliclifeasifwewereallmonolingualEnglishspeakers" (1983:xiii).ThattheUnitedStateshasneverdeclaredEnglishtobetheofficiallanguageshould notleadustodoubtitsprimacyoverallotherlanguages.Indeed,thisshowsonlyits overwhelmingstrength:suchattemptsatofficializationaregenerallyregardedassuperfluousand thereforerejected.Anydiscussionoflanguagebehaviorinthe 539

UnitedStatesmustbeginwiththeacknowledgmentofonefundamentalsocialfact:theperception thatEnglishisthemostimportantandpowerfullanguageintheworldmakesdevelopmentof bilingualproficiencyinthegeneralpopulationappeartobealuxury,andintensifiesthepressurefor personsofnonEnglishspeakingbackgroundtodiscardtheirlanguageinfavorofEnglish. Inthischapter,wewilltrytounderstandhowlinguisticdiversityandnormativeEnglish monolingualismcoexistintheUnitedStates,andexplainhowthissituationdeveloped.First,wewill presentabriefsociolinguisticprofile,whichwillincludeapictureofwherethemajorlanguage "islands"arelocated,anexaminationofthenatureandnumericalstrengthofdifferentlanguage communities,andanappraisaloftheprestigelevelsofdifferentlanguagesinrelationtoEnglish. Next,wewillgiveahistoricalaccountofethnicgrouprelationsintheUnitedStateswithaviewto understandingwhysomegroupstendtoretaintheirlanguagelongerthanothers.Thiswillinclude, aswell,ashorthistoryofbilingualeducationprogramsandpolicydevelopments.Wewillthenturn ourattentiontoanassessmentofthepresentsituation:Whataretheresearchtrendsintheareasof groupandindividualbilingualism,secondlanguageacquisition,andlanguageteaching?Whatare therecentpolicydevelopmentsthatwouldaffectlanguagebehaviorandeducation?Whatarethe alternativesinbilingualeducationprogramming?Whatmovementistheretowardthedevelopment ofacomprehensivelanguagepolicy?Whataretheprospectsforlanguagemaintenanceand languageshiftandforthedevelopmentofageneralbilingualproficiencyintheU.S.population? Finally,wewillofferashortlistofimportantsourcesofinformationonlanguagecommunities, languagepolitics,bilingualeducation,andlanguageteachingintheUnitedStates. SOCIOLINGUISTICCONTEXT Itisimportantattheoutsetofthisdiscussiontounderstandsomethingofthelanguagedynamicsof U.S.society.Thisentails,first,awordaboutthedemographicsoflanguagecommunitiesandthe extenttowhichtheyhavebeenabletomaintaintheirlanguages.Thenwewillexaminesomeofthe socialandpoliticalforcesthatactonlanguagecommunitiesandthatinfluencethemtoward languagemaintenanceorlanguageshift. LanguageDemographics Ananalysisofthe1980censuspublishedbytheU.S.BureauoftheCensus(1980;cf.Waggoner, 1984)showstheminoritylanguagepopulation(MLP)ofthecountrytonumberabout34.6million persons,oralittlemorethan15percentofthetotalU.S.populationof226,361,000.TheMLPcan bedefinedasthosepersonswhospeakalanguageotherthanEnglishathomeorwholivein householdsinwhichatleastonepersonspeaksanonEnglishlanguage.Ofcourse,notallsuch personscanbeconsidered"bilingual"inthecommonsenseofthe 540

term(where"bilingual"istakentomeanapersonwhounderstandsandproducesthelanguagetoa certaindegreeofproficiency).Still,thecensusreportsshowthatabout23millionpeoplespeaka nonEnglishlanguageathome,andabout18.6millionpersonsspeakEnglishandanother languagethatis,theyare"bilinguals"(Garcia,1985:149). About45percentoftheMLPisintheSpanishlanguagegroup(15.5million);thisgroupisfollowed insizebytheFrenchandGerman(3millioneach),Italian(2.6million),andPolish(1.3million) communities.Ofthegeneralpopulation,about28percentiseighteenyearsoldoryounger.Butfor theMLP,33percentisundereighteen.MostnotableinthisgrouparetheSpanish(40percent children)andtheVietnamese(46percentchildren).Thisissignificant,ofcourse,foranumberof publicpolicyconcerns,especiallyeducation.MLPchildrenconstitute17percentoftheschoolage population.Approximately8millionchildrenliveinminoritylanguagefamilies,andmorethanhalf ofthesespeaktheminoritylanguageathome.Reportsonthe1980censusandtheEnglish LanguageProficiencySurvey(ELPS)showthatthenumberofminoritylanguagespeakingchildren rose27percentfrom3.8millionin1976to4.5millionin1982,andthatthenumberoflimited Englishproficient(LEP)childrenrosefrom2millionto2.4millioninthesameperiod(Bell, 1984).ThemostrecentstudiesofthecensuspredictthattheMLP,mostnotablytheHispanicand Asiangroups,willcontinuetoincreaseatasteadyrateatleastuntiltheyear2000(Brownetal., 1981;Oxfordetal.,1981;U.S.BureauoftheCensus,1983;Wong,1985). Asimportantasthenumberofminoritylanguagespeakersisthegeographicaldistributionofthe differentlanguagecommunities.Oneofthemostimportantfactorsinlanguagemaintenanceisthe physicalpositionofthesecommunitiesinrelationtospeakersofthedominantlanguage(Conklin andLourie,1983;Paulston,1985).Ofparticularsignificancehasbeentherelativeinsulationand isolationthesegroupshavebeenabletoachieve.Kloss(1966)callsthistheexistenceof"language islands."Inspiteofaconsiderableamountofculturalandlinguisticdiffusionanunderstandable resultofthevalueplacedinthesocietyonallkindsofmobilitythemajorlanguagecommunitiesof theUnitedStatescanbeassociatedwithmoreorlessdefinitegeographicalareas.Wewilltryto pointtheseoutnow. ItisfittingthatthegreatestpartoftheMLPareSpanishspeakers,sinceupuntilthelastcentury morethanhalftheareasoftheUnitedStateswascontrolledbyeitherSpainorMexico.Theareasof greatestHispanicinfluencehistoricallyarealsothosewherethelargestSpanishspeaking communitiesarefoundtoday.Chicanos,orMexicanAmericans,arecloselyidentifiedwiththefive SouthwesternstatesofCalifornia,Texas,Arizona,NewMexico,andColorado.Withinthesestates, ChicanosarefoundmainlyinurbanbarriosinlargecitiessuchasLosAngeles,SanAntonio,El Paso,andSanFrancisco.DiffusionoutoftheSouthwest,whichhasresultedinsignificant concentrationsofChicanos,isdueinlargeparttoeconomicfactors;Chicanocommunitiesinthe PlainsandtheMidwest,forexample,havegrownwheremigrantfarmlaborersandagricultural 541

factoryworkersdecidedtosettle.Chicanosconstituteabout60percentoftheU.S.Hispanic community(Brownetal.,1981).PuertoRicanshavemigratedtothemainlandinlargenumbers startinginthe1960s,mainlyasaresultofpooreconomicconditionsontheisland.Thereare slightlymorethan3millioninsularPuertoRicans,andabout2milliononthemainland,ofwhom almost60percentliveinNewYorkCity.MostoftherestliveinlargecitiesoftheNortheast, althoughgrowingcommunitiescanbefoundelsewhere,especiallytheMidwestandtheWestCoast. Perhapsasmanyas85percentofthesePuertoRicanshaveSpanishastheirmothertongue(Brown etal.,1981;Zentella,1981;ConklinandLourie,1983).CubanscametotheUnitedStatesinlarge numbersforthefirsttimefollowingthe1959revolution.Thisfirstwaveofabouteighthundred thousandpersonsconsistedmainlyofeducated,landowningmembersofthemiddleandupper classes.AbouthalfoftheseimmigrantssettledinDadeCounty,Florida.Alaterinfluxof125,000 Cubans,participantsinthe1980MarielBoatLift,addedsomewhattothelargeCubancommunity aroundMiami;but,perhapsbecausetheywerepoorerandlesswelleducatedthantheolder immigrants,Floridacommunitieswerelesstolerantofthisgroup.Asaresult,theywerescatteredin avarietyoflocationsaroundthecountry;manyofthemhavesincereturnedtoCuba.Centraland SouthAmericansandotherSpanishspeakersmaytotalupto2.5millionpersons.Theseimmigrants, manyofwhomhaveenteredthecountryasrefugees,tendtobescatteredthroughoutthecountry, thoughtheyappeartoprefersettlinginsomeoftheestablishedHispaniccommunities(thebarrios ofSanFrancisco,NewYork,andMiami,forexample,whileprimarilyChicano,PuertoRican,and Cuban,respectively,serveasrefugesforlargenumbersofotherSpanishspeakersaswell).This tendencyforSpanishspeakingimmigrantstoseekoutandsettleinHispanicenclavesisanimportant factorinthepersistenceofSpanishlanguageislandsintotheindefinitefuture. TheEuropeanlanguagegroupstheGermans,French,Italians,Poles,Scandinavians,andothers havebeenlesssuccessfulinmaintainingidentifiablelanguageislands.Thereareperhapsasmanyas 50millionpeopleofGermanheritageintheUnitedStatestoday,thesecondlargestethnicheritage groupinthecountry,aftertheAngloIrish(Gilbert,1981).Yet,about90percentofthatgroupis monolingualinEnglish(Veltman,1983:43).ThelargeGermancommunitiesthatdevelopedalong theEasternseaboardandintheMidweststartinginthemiddleofthenineteenthcenturyhave retainedmuchoftheirethnicdistinctiveness,butnottheirlanguage.Thosegroupsbestableto achieveahighdegreeoflanguagemaintenance,likethesocalledPennsylvaniaDutchortheAmish, candosobecausetheirlanguageisalsoareligiouslanguage;butthelinkofGermanwiththe religionofthemainstreamcommunities,sostrongintheearlyCatholicandLutheranchurches,has virtuallydisappeared(Ruiz,1985).TherearestillafewGermanEnglishbilingualcommunities, mostnotablyintheMidwest(ConklinandLourie,1983:32).Generally,however,therelativelylarge concentrationsofpersonsofGermanheritagewhichstillexistarenotsomuchlanguageislandsas ethnicculturalones.Frenchspeakersareconcentrated 542

inareaswhereFranceandFrenchCanadahavehadhistoricalinfluence.Whilethegreatestnumber ofthesepersonsistobefoundinLouisiana(wherethe1976censusfoundmorethanhalfamillion FrenchEnglishbilinguals),evidenceofFrenchinfluencepersistsintheMidwestalongthe MississippiRiverandintheNortheast.ItisinterestingtonotethatLouisianaandNewEngland sharecommonsourcesofFrenchspeakers:eachhasbeeninfluencedbyEuropeans,Canadians,and WestIndians.CalvinVeltman(1983)calculatesthat65.6percentofthoseofFrenchheritageinthe UnitedStatesareEnglishmonolinguals.TheotherEuropeangroupscanalsobeidentifiedwith certainregions.ItaliansformedurbancommunitiesinthelargecitiesoftheNortheastandtheGreat Lakes;veryoldItaliansectionspersistinBoston,NewYorkCity,Philadelphia,andChicago (CorreaZoli,1981).PolesandotherSlavicgroupsarealsofoundinlargenumbersintheseareas, aswellasinTexasandCalifornia(Henzl,1981).ThevastmajorityofScandinavianAmericansare eitherSwedishorNorwegian;thesehaveclusteredintheupperMidwesternstates,thoughthereare stillidentifiablyScandinaviancommunitiesinNewYorkandthePacificNorthwest(Conklinand Lourie,1983:3537).In1976,therewereabout3.1millionpersonsofScandinavianbackgroundin theUnitedStates,withanEnglishmonolingualismrateofover86percent(Veltman,1983:43). WeneedtomentiontwoothergroupsofnonEnglishlanguagebackgroundwhichtendtodevelop languageislands.TheAsianpopulationoftheUnitedStatesgrewby142percentbetween1970and 1980(Wong,1985).ThelargestincreasesoccurredintheFilipino,Chinese,andKoreangroups; therewasalsoaninfluxofnewimmigrantgroupsduringthistimemostnotablytheVietnamese andtheHmong.Ofthe3.7millionAsians,59percentareforeignbornandtwothirdsspeakthe languageathome.Asianscurrentlyconstitute1.5percentoftheU.S.population;trendsin immigrationandbirthratesuggestthatthisfigurewillbeover4percentbytheyear2000.In1980, 64percentofAsianslivedinthreestatesCalifornia,Hawaii,andNewYork;40percentwere concentratedinthefourmetropolitanareasofLosAngelesLongBeach,SanFranciscoOakland, NewYorkCity,andHonolulu.Thesegroupsareexpectedtoremainsoconcentrateduntilatleast theyear2000(Oxfordetal.,1981).AbouthalfofthealmosteighthundredthousandNative AmericansintheUnitedStatesliveonreservations.Perhapsasmanyasonethirdofthepopulation speaksoneofthetwohundredorsoNativeAmericanlanguagesthatstillexist.Thelargestofthese communities,theNavajo,numberaboutninetythousandpersons.Becauseoftheirisolationand theiruseofnativelanguageintraditionalreligiouspractice,NativeAmericanstendtoretaintheir languagemoresuccessfullythanmostgroups.Ontheotherhand,thesmallnumberofspeakers withinmostoftheselanguagecommunitiesandthemovementoftheyoungpeopleawayfrom reservationscouldmeanamorerapidtendencytolanguageshiftinthefuture.Tragically,because thegreatmajorityoftheselanguageshavenowritingsystem,languageshiftforNativeAmericans hasinthepastoftenmeantlanguagedeath(Nichols,1985;Leap,1981;ConklinandLourie,1983). 543

LanguageStatus StatushasnotbeenconferredinanyofficialsenseonEnglishoranyotherlanguageintheUnited States,exceptperhapsinafewisolatedcasesatthestateorlocallevel.Instead,therehasevolved alanguageideologythatregardslanguageasaformofsocialpower:thestatusofalanguagein theUnitedStatesisdeterminedbyitsperceivedutility.Fishmantakesthisposition: Englishforourmassesisalinguafrancaratherthanathingofbeauty,elegance, precision,purity,orgreatness."Itworks";itisaninstrumentality;butassuch,itis notanobjectoflove,affection,devotion,emotion.Forgoodorforevil,wehave developedacivilizationthatisnotsentimentalaboutlanguage,languages,oreven aboutitsownlanguage(1981:516;cf.Fishman,1966:30;Marckwardt,1958:133). Onemightspeakofasortofunconsciouslinguisticstratificationthathasdevelopedinthe UnitedStates,withEnglishatthetopandallotherlanguagesarrangedinsomeorderbelowit. Butthesituationismorecomplicatedthanthat.OnlycertainvarietiesorformsofEnglishso calledStandardAmericanEnglish,forexample,orBritishinfluencedformshaveprestige. Theseareseentobeimportantfortechnologyandbusiness,forliterature,andforworldwide communications.ThatthepowerofEnglishisrecognizedthroughouttheworld,afactattestedto byitswidespreaduseasanadditionallanguage(Fishman,Cooper,andConrad,1977),only servestoaddtotheprestigeofitsinternational,standardizedforms,andtosubordinateother varieties,intheUnitedStates.ThemostobviouscaseofasubordinatedvarietyisBlackEnglish, consideredbysomenottobealanguageatall.Thefactthatanywelldevelopedlinguistic argumentshavebeenofferedforitsstatusasafullfledgedlanguage(see,forexample,Labov, 1972)hasnotdiminishedtheresistancebythegeneralpopulationtoitspublicuse.Such resistancewasalsofacedbyotherEnglishvarietiesChicanoEnglish,Appalachianspeech,and othersthoughperhapstoalesserdegree.Thisisbecauseintoleranceforthesevarietieshaslittle todowiththeirstatusaslanguagesorevenwithacknowledgmentsoftheircommunicative richness;ithastodoprimarilywiththeirlackofstatusaspurveyorsofsocialpower.What subordinatedvarietiesofEnglishhaveincommonisthattheyareperceivedtohavelittleorno potentialforadvancingtheiruserstowardsomesocialgood.Discardingtheselanguagesinfavor ofStandardEnglishisconsideredaprudent,practicaldecision,essentialforanyeconomicand socialmobility. WhatcanbesaidofthisstatuswithrespecttononEnglishlanguagesintheUnitedStates?Here, wemustmakesomecrucialdistinctions.FergusonandHeathdistinguishbetweenethnic languagesandforeignlanguages(1981:xxxiv).Bythistheymean,ontheonehand,the languagesusedasmothertonguesbynonEnglishspeakersand,ontheother,languageslearned inschoolasformalsubjects.Atleastsincethelatenineteenthcentury,therehasbeenaconsistent intoleranceforthepublicuseofethniclanguages,withaconcomitantriseinforeignlanguage interestandstudy.Howisthisexplained? 544

Oneshouldnote,first,thatthisdistinctionoperatesonmanylevels.Itis,forexample,an academicdistinction:withtheformalizationofforeignlanguagecurriculabeginninginthe 1880s,anemphasisonreadingandwritingofthehighlystandardizedmodernlanguagesbecame thecentralfeatureofforeignlanguageteaching.Mothertongues,whichwereoftenregional varietiesoftheWorldStandardlanguagesfoundintextbooksandvaluedprimarilyasmeansof oralcommunication,cametobedevaluedbytheeducationalestablishment.Thepresent antagonismbetweenforeignlanguageandbilingualeducationteachersistraceableinparttothis academicbias(Ruiz,1985).Butifthedistinctionbetweenethnicandforeignlanguagesisan academicone,itisprobablymoreofasocialpoliticalideologicalone.Ethniclanguagesare potentialthreatssocially,economically,andperhapsevenmilitarily,preciselybecausetheyare attachedtoalanguagecommunity.EffortstomaintainanonEnglishmothertonguehaveoften beenviewedasanactofseparatism,ofdisloyalty;significantly,theyarealsoseenasdetracting from,andperhapsincompatiblewith,effortstolearnEnglish.Thatiswhybilingualeducation, whichisdesignedtousethemothertongueasoneofthemediaofinstruction,hasbecomesucha controversialsubject:someregarditasanefforttomaintainanonEnglishlanguage(largely, theyaremistaken)and,therefore,asaprogramthatretardsEnglishlanguageachievement.The abilitytospeakEnglish,oratleasttheearnestdesiretolearnit,isregardedbysomeasthe essenceofcitizenshipintheUnitedStates. Ontheotherhand,thesuspicionofdisloyaltyisremovedfromthestudyofforeignlanguages (exceptinthemosthystericallyxenophobicoftimes,suchasthelate1910sand1920s).Indeed, theU.S.militarymaywellbethemostprolificandefficienttrainerofforeignlanguage specialists.Furthermore,theModernLanguageAssociationhasrecentlyreportedanincreasein interestinstudyingforeignlanguagesincollegesanduniversities;thelargestincreasesoccurred inthestudyofthelanguagesoftheUnitedStates'threegreatestideologicalandcommercial competitorsJapanese,Russian,andChinese(Maeroff,1984).Thereisastrangeironyatwork inasocietyinwhichtheefforttoretainone'sfirstlanguageisconstruedasdisloyal,whilethe studyofasecondlanguageisregardedaspatriotic.But,weshouldnotforget,itisalso pragmatic:itisacknowledgmentofthestatusdifferencesbetweenethnicandforeignlanguages. Foreignlanguagesare"standards";ethniclanguagesare"vernaculars."Studyingtheoneisan "elite"activity;maintainingtheotherisa"folk"act.Theextenttowhichweemphasizeforeign languagestudyoverethniclanguagemaintenanceisevidenceoftheperceptionthattheformeris anactofacquiringpower,andthelatteranactofpowerlesssentimentality. Finally,letusconsideroneotherdistinction.S.O.Garciasaysthefollowing: WhatisacceptedintheUnitedStatesisbilingualism,thatis,theuseoftwo languagesbyindividuals,butnotdiglossia,thatis,theenduringsocietalarrangement fortheexistenceoftwolanguages,eachhavingitssecure,legitimate,andwidely implementedfunctions(1985:147). 545

Thisisaninterestingpoint,anditisrelatedtowhatwehavesaidabove.Ethniclanguagesare attachedtocommunities,theexistenceofwhichisanimportantcontributortodiglossia.Foreign languagesarenotattachedtocommunities,atleastnotintimately.Thedistinctionbetween bilingualismanddiglossiacouldperhapsbemoregenerallystatedinitsapplicationtotheUnited Statesasadistinctionbetweendiversityandpluralism.Thefirstoftheseisdevelopedbyindividual initiative,andisconsideredanessentialingredientofAmericandemocracy;thesecondconstitutes groupactivityandisregardedwithgreatsuspicion.ThebiastowardindividualismintheUnited Statesmayhaveitsadvantagesinsomeareasofsociallife,butitisproblematicinthedevelopment oflanguagecapacity.Diglossiaisessentialtolongterm,stablebilingualism,ascountless sociolinguistshavetoldus;yet,itisnottobeencouragedintheUnitedStates.Thisnodoubt explainswhytheU.S.languagestudent,evenafterlongperiodsoftraininginourbestuniversities, isdeficientinconversationalskills(Benderson,1983).But,then,itisapparentlynotconversational skillsthatarevalued;itisforeignlanguageliteracytowhichprestigeisattached. Wemaysummarizebyrestatingouroriginalthesis:statusisattachedtothoselanguages,those languagevarieties,thosedimensionsoflanguagecapacity,andthoseactivitiesrelatedtolanguage whichareperceivedtobeofhighutility.StandardEnglishispreferredtoregionalorfunctional varieties.Foreignlanguagesarepreferredtoethniclanguages.Literacyskillsarepreferredto conversationalskills.Theseareallassociatedwiththeacquisitionofpower,whichistheprimary orientationoflanguageideologyintheUnitedStates. HISTORICALCONTEXT Thesociolinguisticdynamicswhichwehavejustdescribedneedahistoricalframeworkinwhichto beunderstood.Languageprestigeandlanguageattitudes,concernswithlanguagemaintenanceand languageshift,thedevelopmentofalanguageideology,aswellasexplanationsofcurrentevents andprojectionsforthefuture,allrequirehistoricalperspective.Wewilltrytogivethisfirstby presentingabriefaccountofethnicgrouprelations,andthenbyofferinganabbreviatedhistoryof bilingualeducationintheUnitedStates. EthnicGroupRelations Thenatureofthecontactamongethnicgroupsisakeytounderstandingdifferencesinlanguage attitudeandbehavior.FergusonandHeathdrawattentiontothedifferencesthattendtocharacterize groupsindifferentcategoriesimmigrantandindigenousgroups,forexample.Navajostendtoresist linguisticassimilationmorethanItalianAmericans,andtheyareonthewholemoresuccessfulin theirefforts(Veltman,1983).Thisisatleastinpartbecausetheimmigrantisurgedtoadoptan attitude,motivatedletussaybyasenseofobligationorgratitudetowardone'shost,ofyieldingto themajority;thecon 546

ditionsofconquestandannexationbeingobviouslydifferentfromthoseofimmigration,the responseoftheindigenouspersonispredictablydifferent.But,havingsaidthatmuch,theanalysis becomesmuchmorecomplicated.Theconditionsofcontactamongethnicgroupsandbetween majorityandminoritygroupsaffecteveryone,majoritygroupsaswell.Itisawholecomplexof conditionswhichcreatesthestatusdifferenceswehavediscussedabove,whichareinturnmajor factorsinlanguageattitudesandbehavior.Letusconsideronlytwoexamples. GermanscametotheUnitedStatesinlargenumbersstartinginthe1830s.FromtheEastern Seaboard,theymigratedintothemajormetropolitanareasoftheMidwestChicago,St.Louis, Cincinnati,Indianapolis,Milwaukee,andothers.Theircommunitiesflourished.Theyestablished schools,churches,andcommunityorganizations,andweregenerallywellrespectedcitizens.Bythe 1850s,theywerebeingelectedtoimportantcivicofficesandwerebeingcourtedbyinterestsinthe publicdomain.ThiswasimportantincitiessuchasSt.Louis,whereGermansconstituted"a considerableportionof[the]activebusinessandmanufacturingcommunity,holdingagreatamount ofthewealthof[the]city,andcontributinglargelytoitsrevenues"(St.LouisPublicSchools, 1876:114).TheGermanlanguagebecameapopularcourseinthepublicschools,bothbecauseit wasthelanguageofalargeportionofthecommunityandbecauseitwasanimportantlanguagefor literatureandscience.ThoughcomplaintswereheardoccasionallyaboutthestrengthofGerman influencebyotherethnicgroups(Pierce,1936:385)andbysomenationalist"protective" organizations(Kloss,1977:70),thestrengthoftheGermancommunitiesandtheGermanlanguage inthepublicschoolsincreasedsteadilyuntilthebeginningofWorldWarI. WegetacompletelydifferentpictureaswemovetoconsidertheChicanosoftheSouthwestin preciselythesameperiod.ThousandsofMexicancitizensbecameMexicanAmericanswiththeend oftheMexicanWarandthesigningoftheTreatyofGuadalupeHidalgoonFebruary2,1848.The UnitedStates'victorywasexpensiveinlives;thirteenthousandU.S.soldiersdiedinthewar.While theTreatyguaranteedcertainrightstotheMexicantenants,manyofthemeventuallylosttheirland andtheirstatus.TheirlanguageandtheirculturecametobedepreciatedbythecontrollingAnglo community.Mexicanchildrenwerediscouragedfromgoingtoschoolandwereoftensegregatedin theirownschoolswhentheydidgo.PublicschoolssuppressedtheSpanishlanguage;manyofthem imposed"noSpanish"rules,bywhichanyoneoverheardspeakingSpanishontheschoolgrounds wasdetained,fined,reported,orinotherwayspunishedforthisviolation.Thesepracticeshave continueduptoveryrecently(U.S.CommissiononCivilRights,1972). Whataccountsforthedifferencesinthesetwocommunitiesandtheresponseofthemajoritygroup towardthem?Fourfactorsappeartobesignificant:(1)thenatureoftheinitialcontact,(2)economic strength,(3)racialtraits,and(4)religioustradition.TheearlyGermanimmigrantswerepolitical refugees,inclinedtofeelfavorablyaboutthefreedomsaffordedbytheirnewcountry.Furthermore, 547

thesmallGermancommunitiesthatexistedintheeighteenthcenturybeforethegreatinfluxof immigrantshaddemonstratedtheirloyaltybyregisteringinsignificantnumbersinthe RevolutionaryandContinentalArmies(Leibowitz,1971:6).TheMexicans,ontheotherhand,had beenaproblemtotheUnitedStatesandtheinhabitantsoftheSouthwesternterritoriesbeforetheir conquest.Notonlywerethey,alongwiththeIndians,amajorforceinpreventingwestward expansion(andthereforeintherealizationofthepromiseof"manifestdestiny"),buttheywerealso suspectedofunderminingtheeffortsofSouthernslaveownersbyharboringfugitives (McWilliams,1949).WhentheyofficiallybecamepartoftheUnitedStates,theattitudeonboth sideswasoneofhostilityengenderedbyabitterandbloodywar.Mexicansweretheenemy, regardlessoftheirlegalstatus;today's"RemembertheAlamo"bumperstickersaretestimonytothe factthatthehostilityabidesevennowamongsome.Thisshowsthestrengthofwarinitseffecton ethnicgroupinterrelationsandlanguagestatus.IthasaffectedtheMexicangroupfromthe beginning;itwouldhaveasimilareffectonGermansinWorldWarI:theimmediatedismantlingof Germanlanguageprogramsatthebeginningofthewarwouldhaveanimpactsuchthatthe languagewouldnotrecoverevenuptonow. TheeconomicandpoliticalstrengthoftheGermancommunitiesoftheMidwesthelpedtocreatean attitudeoftolerance,evenaccommodation,forthem.Itappears,however,thateconomicpower preceded,perhapsmadepossible,theirpoliticalinfluence.TheSt.Louisreportsshowthatthestudy ofGermanlanguageinpublicschoolswasencouragedbytheauthoritiesbecauseitwasimportant todrawtheconsiderableresourcesoftheGermancommunitiesoutoftheprivateschools.There weresimilarpatternsofaccommodationinothercitiesoftheMidwest.Whatevereconomicpower theMexicansoftheSouthwesthadwassoonerodedthroughlegalandpoliticalmaneuvering.The intoleranceforSpanishwasinfluencedbythefactthatitwasthelanguageofapoor, disenfranchisedgroup. Physically,Germanswereindistinguishablefromthedominantwhitemajority,whichafterallwasa blendoftheolderNorthernandWesternEuropeanethnicgroups.Mexicans,ontheotherhand, werehighlyvisiblebecauseoftheirdarkerfeaturesandtheirIndianbackground.Thisassociation withtheNativeAmericanwasasignificantdimensionofthediscriminationagainsttheMexican American.TheIndianwastheultimateenemytothewhitemajorityoftheSouthwest.Furthermore, Indianshadaseparatelegalstatus;insomestates,forexample,itwaslegaltoexcludeIndiansfrom thepublicschools(Weinberg,1979);categorizingMexicanAmericansasIndianshadtheeffectof justifyingsegregationofthemaswell.Itwasnotuntil1954(inthecaseofPeteHernandez, Petitionervs.Texas)thatMexicanAmericanswerelegallyestablishedas"Caucasians."Thatisnota categorizationwhichmanyChicanosarewillingtoacceptforthemselves,however;nordoesit preventdiscriminationbasedonaperceptionofracialdifferenceonthepartofthedominantgroup. Itappearsthatdifferential 548

evaluationsbasedonracewerealsobehindtheacceptanceofthelanguageoftheGermansand thesuppressionofthelanguageoftheMexicans. TheProtestanttraditionintheUnitedStateshasbeendominantfromitsearliestdays.The exclusionofCatholicinfluencesfromthesocietyhasbeenaconcernofindividuals,private organizations,andpublicagencies(Kloss,1977:27).ThisantiCatholicorientationplaced Mexicansatanimmediatedisadvantage.Germansweremorebalancedastoreligion.Thiswas importantfortheGermanCatholics,sinceattimestheycouldformacoalitionofinterestwith Lutheranswhentheyfeltthreatened.PerhapsthemostcelebratedcaseofLutheranCatholic cooperationintheGermancommunitywasthecampaignagainsttheBennettLawofWisconsin inthelate1880s.Thiswasperceivedtobeanantiparochialschoolmeasure.Sincethetwo churchesoperatedextensiveprivateschoolsystemsbythattime,theywereabletoworktogether andgathersupportfromothersectorsoftheGermancommunitytogetthelawrepealed.Still, thiswouldnotbethelastbattlefoughtagainstantiCatholicbias. Thesetwoexamplesshowsomeofthecomplexityinprovidingahistoryofintergrouprelations. Acomplicatedarrayofconditionsdictateinanyparticularerawhichofthese,orother,factors willbethestrongestindeterminingsocialstatus.Theseconditionsaredifferentforeachgroup. EarlyAsiangroups,whichdidwelleconomically,werediscriminatedagainstnonetheless, perhapsprimarilybecauseofracialandreligiousbias;EasternandSouthernEuropean immigrantsoftheturnofthecenturyweregenerallysympathetictoAmericandemocratic government,yettheywereviewedwithsuspicion;andtheGermansthemselvesbecamesocial outcasts,inspiteofalltheirfavorabletraits,whentheircountryoforiginbecametheenemyof theUnitedStates.PerhapsthecaseoftheGermansshouldserveasanexampleofhowthereisno sureroadtotheattainmentofsocialstatusintheUnitedStates,thoughsomeroadsparticularly thosethatleadtoanagglutinationofpoweraresurerthanothers. BilingualEducation Animportantelementinthehistoryofethnicgrouprelationsisanexaminationofhowthey,and theirlanguages,havebeentreatedintheschools.Bilingualschooling,bywhichwemeantheuse oftwolanguagesasmediaofinstructioninthecurriculum,isarelativelyoldphenomenoninthe UnitedStates.Ithasitsroots,nodoubt,intheneedforreligiousinstructioninthecommunities themselves,coupledwiththeurgetoaccommodatethelanguageofthedominantsociety.Asa moregeneralizededucationalapproach,itisprobablyasoldasthepublicschoolitself.Oneof theearliestrecordedprogramswasdevelopedbyGermansinCincinnatiin1840(Kloss, 1977:15758).Thisprogram,whichexperimentedwithdifferentpatternsofGermanEnglish instruction,servedasmodelandresourceforotherprogramsthroughouttheMidwest.For example,itfurnishedfivespeciallytrainedbilingualteachersfortheSt.Louispublic 549

schoolsin186465,thefirstyearoftheirGermanEnglishprogram.TheSt.Louisprogramgrew rapidly,sothatinitstenthyear73percentofitsstudentswerestudyingGermaninfortyfive schools(St.LouisPublicSchools,1876:113).OtherprogramsintheMidwestdevelopedand grewjustasrapidly.Chicago,Milwaukee,Indianapolis,Louisville,andothercitieshad significantprograms,oftensupportedbybureaucraticstructuresdesignedtoadministerthem. OtherlanguagegroupsbenefitedfromtheGermansuccesses.InMilwaukee,Polish,Italian,and Norwegian,alongwithGerman,werestudied;Czech,French,Spanish,Dutch,andother languageswereusedinpublicschoolsthroughoutthecountry,fromBaltimoretoSanFrancisco. TheseprogramspersisteduntiltheoutbreakofWorldWarI. ThewarbroughtanendtoGermanstudyinthepublicschools.Butithadmoregeneraleffectsas well.Theperiodbetweentheworldwarscanrightlybedescribedasthemostxenophobicinthe historyoftheUnitedStates.Between1918and1935,almosthalfofthestateswouldpasslaws hostiletoforeignlanguagestudyinschools.ThemostwellknownofthesewasNebraska's SimanLawof1919;itwasruledunconstitutionalinthecelebrated1923decisionMeyervs. Nebraskaonthegroundsthatitinappropriatelyallowedthestatetoimposecurriculardecisions onprivateaswellaspublicschools.Still,thehostilitytowardforeignlanguages,coupledwitha strongpushtowardAmericanizationattitudes,hadanegativeeffectonforeignlanguagestudy untilthe1950s(Ruiz,1985).Bilingualeducation,whereoneofthelanguagesisamothertongue tothestudents,wouldnotreemergewithanystrengthuntilthe1960s. ThemostimportantprogramsofthemodernerawerethosedevelopedbytheCubancommunity ofDadeCounty,Florida,intheearly1960s.Theseprogramsweremotivatedbytwo considerations:theneedtobesuccessfulinanEnglishspeakingcountryforaslongasthe refugeesmightbehere;andtheneedforthechildrentoretainasenseofCubanidentityand Spanishlanguageproficiency,sincetheyfullyexpectedtoreturnwithinashorttime.TheCuban programsservedtofosteranattitudeofacceptabilityforsuchprogramsbenefitingothergroups. ChicanosandPuertoRicanslobbiedsteadilyforageneralbilingualeducationmeasure.Finally, twobillsthathadbeenintroducedbylegislatorsfromTexasandNewYorkwerecombinedand passedintolawin1968asTitleVIIoftheElementaryandSecondaryEducationActof1965. CommonlyknownastheBilingualEducationAct(BEA),itprovided$7.5millionin1969,its firstyearofoperation.Thisresultedinseventysixdemonstrationprojects,allbutoneofwhich wasgearedtowardSpanishspeakers.The1968BEAwasvagueinitsdescriptionofwhatthe programsshouldentail;consequently,agreatvarietyofprogramsweredeveloped.Itstwomain provisionswerethatthechildrenbenefitingfromtheprogramshouldbelimitedintheirabilityto speakEnglishandthattheyshouldbefromhouseholdsearning$3,000ayearorless.Beyond that,itwasnotveryspecific. TheBEAhasbeenrevisedandreauthorizedthreetimessince1968in1974,1978,and1984.The 1974versiondefinedbilingualeducationasaprogramto 550

helpchildrenacquireEnglishproficiency;fundsweretobeused"todemonstrateeffectivewaysof providingforchildrenoflimitedEnglishspeakingability,instructiondesignedtoenablethem, whileusingtheirnativelanguage,toachievecompetenceintheEnglishlanguage."Thishascometo bethestandarddefinitionofa"transitional"bilingualprogram,wherethechild'slanguageisused onlyuntilsuchtimeasheorsheisabletoperformordinaryclassworkinEnglish.Thisnarrowview ofbilingualeducationmayhavebeeninfluencedbytheLauvs.NicholsSupremeCourtdecision earlierin1974.There,theCourtfoundthattheSanFranciscoschoolsystemhadviolatedthecivil rightsofapproximatelyeighteenhundredChinesechildrenbyteachingthemexclusivelyina languagetheydidnotunderstandEnglish.WhiletheCourtmandatednoparticularremedy,the implementingrulesformulatedbytheDepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfareurged transitionalbilingualeducationasanacceptableremedy.Therefore,thenotionofbilingual educationasaprogramtoteachEnglishtononEnglishspeakerswasnowcodifiedinadministrative rulesandcrystallizedinthepublicmind. Therevisionsof1978didnothingtoalterthisviewofbilingualeducation.Theirmostsignificant achievementwastochangethetargetpopulationfrom"limitedEnglishspeaking"(LES)to "limitedEnglishproficient"(LEP).Thishadthepracticaleffectofexpandingtheeligible populationtothosewhohadreadingandwritingdeficienciesaswell. The1984BEAwasheavilyinfluencedbytheideasofstaffmembersoftheReaganAdministration whohaddoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofbilingualprograms.Theirviewwasthattherewasnot enoughevidencetosupporttheexclusiveuseoftransitionalbilingualeducationtoremedythe Englishdeficienciesofthesechildren(BakeranddeKanter,1983).Thedraftproposalsubmittedfor theAdministrationbytheSecretaryofEducationforconsiderationbyCongressincludedfourmajor changesinthelaw:itwastoprovidebasicgrantsforbuildingthecapacityoflocaleducation agenciestotreatLEPchildren;itencouragedtheinvolvementofstateauthoritiesinthedevelopment andevaluationofprojects;itwouldgiveprioritytothosechildrenwhose"usuallanguage"wasa nonEnglishlanguage;anditwouldprovidefundingfor"specialalternatives"whichwouldserveas experimentsinprogramming.Allfourofthesechangesmadeitintothefinalversion,reportedout ofcommitteeonOctober2,1984(HouseofRepresentatives,1984).Perhapsthemostcontroversial changeistheoneprovidingfor"specialalternatives,"sincebythattheproposersmeantespecially programsthatwouldnotusethechild'smothertongueasamediumofinstruction.Theimpactof thischange,however,wasdiminishedbytheprovisionthatnotmorethan10percentofthetotal fundsexpendedinanyyearcouldbeusedforalternativeprogramming.Still,ithasprovidedforthe possibilitythatbilingualeducationintheUnitedStatescanbeaprogramwhereonlyonelanguage isusedforthepurposeofdevelopingproficiencyinonelanguageEnglish.Onemightwellaskwhat justifiescallingthiskindofeducation"bilingual." 551

Oneshouldnotassumefromthisdiscussionthatdevelopmentsinbilingualeducationpolicyhave beenonlyatthefederallevel.Nothingcouldbemoreuntrue.By1984,perhapsasmanyastwenty twostateshadpassedbilingualeducationlegislation(reportedfiguresvary:see,forexample,Bell, 1984,whosaystwentytwostateshadpassedsuchlaws,andAmbertandMelendez,1985,who reporttwentystateswithbilingualacts).Thisissignificant,sinceintheUnitedStatestheprimary responsibilityforeducationfallsonstateandlocaljurisdictions.Oneshouldalsonote,however,that thevastmajorityofstatestatutesprovidefornarrow,transitionalprogramsalmostexclusively. Theinitialenthusiasmforbilingualeducationseemstohavewanedsignificantlyinthemid1980s. The$7.5millionappropriationof1969whichreacheditshighwatermarkat$171.7millionin1980 wasreducedbymorethan$30millioninthefirstthreeReaganyears(Toch,1984;cf.Ariasand Navarro,1981,whosefiguresvaryslightlyfromToch's).Mostinformedobserversanticipatemuch deepercutsinthesecondReaganterm,the$4millionincreasein1985appropriationsbeingviewed almostuniversallyasanelectionyearaberration. TheconditionofbilingualeducationintheUnitedStatesisconfusing.Advocatesofabroader conceptionofbilingualeducationJoshuaFishman,RudolphTroike,andothersarguegoing beyondtransitionalbilingualeducationtomaintenanceandevenenrichmentbilingualeducation wheretheobjectisforeveryone,minorityandmajoritychildalike,tohaveanopportunitytolearna secondlanguagewhilemaintainingthemothertongue.Yet,theseadvocatesarerarelyrepresentedin officialpolicy;instead,thelawsareinfluencedbymiddlelevelstaffmembersofthefederal bureaucracy,manyofwhomhavelittleformalbackgroundinbilingualeducationresearchorpolicy development.ThismaybethereasonwhytheUnitedStatesismovingtowardbilingualeducation programmingthatdoesnotseektodevelopeitherabilingualindividualorabilingualsociety,thatis not"bilingual"inanycommonsenseoftheword.Instead,thetrendistowardapolicyof Anglificationforall.Perhapsthistrendisexplainedbyourtraditionalhostilitytowardlinguistic pluralism,andourdepreciationofethniclanguages;perhapsitismerelyamanifestationofour pragmatism:insuringEnglishproficiencyinthesechildrenempowerstheminwaysnotafforded thembytheirownlanguage. THEPRESENTCONTEXT Weshouldnowturntoaconsiderationofthecurrentsituationinrespecttobilingualismand bilingualeducationintheUnitedStates.First,wewilldiscussthemajorresearchtrendsin bilingualismandsecondlanguageacquisitionandteaching;next,wewillexaminesomeofthe alternativesinbilingualeducationprogramming;thenwewillconsidertowhatextentaconsensus existsforacomprehensivenationallanguagepolicy;finally,wewillspeculateontheprospectsfor bilingualismintheUnitedStates. 552

ResearchTrends SecondLanguageAcquisition.ProgramdevelopmentintheUnitedStateshasbeeninfluenced stronglybytheworkofresearcherssuchasStephenKrashen,JimCummins,andTracyTerrell,who advancecommunicativeapproachestosecondlanguageacquisitionandteaching.Thecommon principlethatunderliesthisworkcanbestatedasfollows:alanguageismorereadilyacquiredwhen itisusedasamediumforthecommunicationofmeaningfulmessagesthanwhenitisusedasa targetforlearning.Thismeansthatemphasisisplacedonthefunctionoflanguageratherthanonits form.Thisisincontrasttoearlierbehavioristtheorieswhichemphasizeconsciouslearningof correctformsoflanguageinorderthatthelearneracquiregoodhabits.Communicativetheorists considerthememorizationandrepetitiondrillsemployedintheseapproachestobeanxiety producingandthereforeahindrancetorealacquisition.Thecommunicativeapproachwould developasclosetoanaturallanguageenvironmentaspossibleforthesecondlanguageclassroomin ordertoreduceanxietyandencouragetheproductionoflargeamountsofmeaningfulmessages.For thebilingualclassroom,thissuggestsajustificationfortheuseofbothlanguagesasmediaof instructionratherthanprimarilyassubjects. Bilingualism.WallaceE.Lambert(1981)distinctionbetweenadditiveandsubtractivebilingualism isusefulinconsideringtheresultsofdifferentkindsofschoolprograms.Additivebilingualism characterizesthestudentwhohasbeenabletomaintainthemothertonguewhileaddingtechnical proficiencyaswellascommunicativecompetenceandanappreciationofthevaluesysteminherent inasecondlanguage.Subtractivebilingualismcharacterizesastudentwho,asaresultofaschool program,haslostproficiencyinthemothertongueandhasreplaceditwithasecondlanguage.This distinctionismoredescriptiveoftheresultsofbilingualprogramsthanthemorecommon maintenancetransitiondistinction.Moregenerally,workbysociolinguistsdemonstratesthat individualbilingualismmustbesupportedbytheoperationofdiglossicnormswithinthespeech communityorthelargersociety(Kjolseth,1972).Attheveryleast,thismeansthateachofthe languagesofthebilingualmusthaveadefinite,substantivefunctioninorderforbothtobe maintained.Fortheclassroom,thisimpliesthenecessityoffunctionaldifferentialoflanguageuse. Acommontechniqueinbilingualprograms,translationfromonelanguagetoanotherofthesame material,isaviolationofthisprinciple,asistheassigningofpurelydirectiveordisciplinary functionstoonelanguageintheclassroom. UseofFirstLanguageasMedium.Thetraditionalassumptioninbilingualeducationisthatboth themothertongueandthesecondlanguageshouldbeusedasmediaofinstruction.Thisisbasedon anotherassumption:thatchildrencanlearnbestthroughalanguagetheyunderstand.Recently,this assumptionhasbeencalledintoquestion(BakeranddeKanter,1983).Ithasbeentheobjectof researchinaseriesofstudiescommissionedbytheNationalInstituteofEducationreferredtoasthe SignificantBilingualInstructionalFeatures(SBIF)project. 553

Researchersroundtheuseofthechild'sfirstlanguageanessentialpartofeffectiveprograms:"in themostpowerfuleducationalenvironmentsforproducingbilingualism,bothlanguagesareusedas themediumofinstruction"(Cazden,1984:1516).Furthermore,"wheninstructionisdeliveredina languageachildonlyminimallycanunderstand,theresultfrequentlyisfrustration,boredom, hostility,orwithdrawal.Thus,accesstolearningisimpededattheveryleast,resultinginfailureor fallingbehindinschoolwork"(TikunoffandVazquezFaria,1982). ImportanceoftheEthnicCultureinInstruction.SBIFresearchersalsofoundthatuseofthe student'shomecultureasamediatorofinstructionwasacomponentofeffectiveprogramsforthe bilingualstudent(TikunoffandVazquezFaria,1982).Thissuggestsrevertingtoanearlier emphasisonbiculturaleducationandusingculturalelements,suchasaffectandvalues,whichgo beyondmerelymaterialculture. EffectivenessofbilingualApproaches.Theeffectivenessofbilingualeducationhasincreasingly beencalledintoquestioninrecentdays.Somehavecalledforanationalexperimenttoprovidemore definitiveguidelinesforfuturedirection(Rotberg,1984).Othershaveseenenough;they recommenddivertingbilingualeducationfundstootherapproaches(TwentiethCenturyFund, 1983;BakeranddeKanter,1983).Yet,advocatesofbilingualeducationstillpresentconvincing argumentsonitsbenefits(Troike,1981).Oneprobleminresolvingthisissueisthatthequestionof effectivenessisdeterminedbywhatonetakesthegoalsoftheprogramtobe.Itisclearthat Fishman,Troike,TikunoffandVazquezFaria,andotherstakeabroadviewofthegoalsofbilingual education:toincreaseequaleducationalopportunity;toenhancethechild'sselfesteem;tocreate betterarticulationbetweenthehomeandtheschoolexperience;todevelopandenhanceskillsin twolanguages.BakeranddeKanterandmembersoftheTwentiethCenturyTaskForce,among others,takeamuchnarrowerview:proficiencyinEnglish.Resolutionofthisproblemwillbe difficult,sinceitisnottobeadjudicatedstrictlybymarshallingempiricalevidence. ProgrammaticAlternatives CourtneyCazden(1984)demonstratesthegreatvarietyofprogramscalled"bilingual."Thereis widevariationintheratiooffirsttosecondlanguageuse;thefunctionsallocatedtothetwo languages;thenumberofadultsintheclassroomandprogram;thenatureandquantityof curriculummaterials;dailyschedules;thecompositionoftheclassrooms;thestatementof objectives;themanagementstylesofthedirectors;theroleofparentadvisorycommittees;andother factors.Itisnowonderthatresearchershaveadifficulttimecomparingresultsacrossprogramsand thatthegeneralpublicisconfused.Thissectiondiscussesonlythemostcommonprogram alternatives. TransitionalBilingualEducation.Wehavealreadydiscussedthistopicbriefly.Itisdesignedto preparethestudentasquicklyaspossibleforentranceintotheregularallEnglishcurriculum.An importantcomponentofthisalternative,as 554

itisformostoftheothervarietiesofbilingualeducation,isformalEnglishasasecondlanguage (ESL)instruction.Thefirstlanguageisgenerallyusedextensivelyintheearlypartoftheprogram andisphasedoutmoreorlessgraduallyasEnglishbecomesthedominantcurricularmedium. MaintenanceBilingualEducation.Thisprogramisdesignedtomaintainthestudent'sproficiency inthemothertonguewhileaddingproficiencyinEnglish.Theratiooffirsttosecondlanguageuse varies.Englishisgenerallytaughtasasubjectfromearlyon.Thereareveryfewtruemaintenance programsintheUnitedStates. EnrichmentBilingualEducation.ThisalternativehasbeenproposedbyFishmanandothers.It transcendsmaintenanceprogramsinthatitisdesignedtoaddtothelinguisticrepertoiresofboth EnglishspeakersandnonorlimitedEnglishspeakers.Thisprogramholdspromiseformaking bilingualeducationagenerallyacceptedcurricularalternative,sinceithasbenefitsforbothmajority andminoritygroups.Uptonow,federalbilingualeducationfundscouldnotbeusedtoteachforeign languagestoEnglishspeakers.Itremainstobeseenwhetheranyenrichmentprogramswillbe fundedunderthe"specialalternatives"provisionofthenewBEA. ImmersionPrograms.Itisfarmorelikelythatimmersionprogramswillbefundedunderthis provision.ResearchersintheDepartmentofEducationhaveexpressedaninterestinconducting experimentsin"structuredimmersion,"bywhichtheymeantheuseofEnglishforinstructional purposesonly,thoughuseofthemothertonguebythestudentwouldbeallowed.Callsfor immersionexperimentshavebeenmotivatedbyarecognitionofthesuccessofsuchprogramsin Canada.However,thereareimportantdifferencesinthegoalsoftheseprogramsandinthe sociolinguisticdynamicsofthetwocountries(HernandezChavez,1984).Someofthosemost familiarwiththeCanadianprogramshavealertedustothedangersofahastyapplicationtothe UnitedStates,particularlyforthepurposeofteachingEnglishtominoritylanguagespeakers. WallaceLambert,forexample,considersthatitwouldhavebeen"inappropriate"forimmersion programstohavebeenofferedtoFrenchstudentsinCanada.Thatwouldhaveled,ultimately,toa displacementofFrenchbyEnglish,whichisgenerally"viewedasthemoreuseful,prestigious,or otherwisemorevaluablelanguage"inNorthAmerica(1984:89).Iftheyaretobetriedatall,they shouldbedesignedforthepurposeofteachingmajorityEnglishspeakersaminoritylanguage.Up tothispoint,thatiswhatthefewimmersionclassroomsintheUnitedStateshavebeendesignedfor. Arecentreportrevealsthatimmersionprogramshavebeendevelopedintwentysevenschoolsin elevencitiesinvolving5,421studentsand245teachers;onlythreelanguageshavebeenused: Spanish,French,andGerman(CaliforniaStateDepartmentofEducation,1984:14043). LanguagePolicyDevelopment Thedevelopmentofacomprehensivenationallanguagepolicyhasneverbeenattemptedinthe UnitedStates.Oneofthereasonshasbeenourconcernfor 555

freedomofspeech,afundamentalconstitutionalguarantee.Anotherreasonisthat,inafederal system,theauthorityofthecentralgovernmenttomakepoliciesofthatsortthatwouldbebinding onthestatesisquestionable.Furthermore,weshouldunderstandthatthedevelopmentofsuch policiesinvolvesverycomplicatedprocesses;manynationsthathaveactedinthiswayhavespent decadessortingoutthedetailsofimplementation. Still,thereisevidencethatanationalconsensustowardthedevelopmentofacomprehensive languagepolicyisbuilding.Amajorimmigrationbillnarrowlyrejectedbythe1984Congress containedasectionthatwouldhavedeclaredEnglishtheofficiallanguageofthecountry.In addition,severalstateshaverecentlypassedlawsofficializingEnglish.Furthermore,muchofthe groundworkhasalreadybeenlaid.WorkbythePresident'sCommissiononForeignLanguageand InternationalStudies(1979)andbythetaskforcesoftheModernLanguageAssociationandthe AmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties(Brod,1980)andpositionstatementsbytheAcademyfor EducationalDevelopmentandtheEdwardW.HazenFoundation(1982)mighteasilyformthebulk ofsupportingdocumentsforsuchapolicy.Buttotheextentthatadefactopolicyalreadyexists,its generalorientationcanbedescribedbysayingthattheUnitedStatesregardsEnglishtobethe languageofuseforallofficialpurposes,otherlanguagesbeingpermissibletoprotectconstitutional guarantees;nonEnglishlanguagesarevaluedforcommercial,scholarly,andmilitarydiplomatic purposes;capacityintheselanguagesistobedevelopedinnonnativespeakers;maintenanceofa nonEnglishlanguageisnotacceptable.Debateofanationallanguagepolicycouldbeginwitha considerationoftheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofsuchanorientation. ProspectsforBilingualism AdiscussionoftheprospectsofbilingualismintheUnitedStatesmustcometogripswithtwo facts.First,thereiscompellingevidenceofrapidandmassivelanguageshiftamongnonEnglish languagecommunities:"Thedataeverywheresuggestthatchildreninallminoritylanguagegroups (except,ofcourse,theNavajo)aremovinginexorablytowardEnglishmonolingualism.Therateis veryrapid"(Veltman,1983:140;cf.CorreaZoli,1981;Gilbert,1981).Thisissoinspiteofthe existenceof581bilingualeducationprogramsin106differentlanguages(U.S.Departmentof Education,1984),mediainavarietyoflanguages(Keller,1983),morethansixtyfivehundred mothertongueschoolsprovidinginstructioninfiftythreedifferentlanguages(Fishman,1984),and ahostofotherinstitutionsdesigned,atleastinpart,tomaintainethniclanguages.Second,U.S. schoolsarenotoriouslybadatdevelopinglanguagecapacity,particularlyoralcapacity,instudents (Benderson,1983).Therecentincreasesinforeignlanguageenrollmentmeannothingifwecannot teachstudentsoncetheyareintheclassrooms.IfwhatGlennG.GilbertsaysaboutFrenchand Germanistrueofotherlanguages,thattheirfuture"liesalmostentirelyintheirfunctionasforeign 556

languages,notasfirstorsecondlanguages"(1981:271),thereapparentlyisnofuture. Thefutureisbleakindeed.Hopeliesonlyinacompletechangeoforientationtowardthenatureand roleoflanguagesintheUnitedStates.Broadlystated,theneworientationwouldbringustoregard languagecommunitiesandtheirlanguagesnotasproblemstoberesolvedbutasresourcestobe managed,preserved,anddeveloped.Totheextentthatwedevaluelanguagesandtheirspeakers,we makeourselveslessabletoappreciatethevalueofanylanguage,evenourown.Thedevelopmentof a"languagecompetentsociety,"aphrasethatrecursinrecentcommissionreportsandposition statements,cannolongerberegardedasamatteroftechnologyorpedagogicalexpertise;itis difficulttoimaginethissocietyhavinganymoreofthosecommodities.Itisamatter,now,ofa changeinbasicorientation. NOTEONINFORMATIONSOURCES Thereareseveralverygoodsourcesofinformationonbilingualismandbilingualeducationinthe UnitedStates.TheNationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducationcanprovideinformationby telephone.Italsohastwovaluablepublications:Forum,anewsletter,whichisavailablefreeandis printedonabimonthlybasis;andFocus,apaperseries,thetitlesofwhichcanalsobeobtained throughtheCenter.TheCenterforAppliedLinguisticspublishesbooksandpapersofinterestand importancetothescholarlycommunity;italsooverseestheERICClearinghouseforLinguistics whichpublishespapersandmonographsinhardcopyandmicrofiche.TheNationalCenterfor BilingualResearch,fundedthroughtheNationalInstituteofEducation,alsopublishesandmakes availableatnominalcosttheresultsofitsprojects.Themajorlanguageprofessionalorganizations suchastheModernLanguageAssociation,theNationalAssociationforBilingualEducation,and theTeachersofEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguagesallhaveregularjournalsandnewsletters thatpresentcurrentresearchandnewsitems.Finally,theGeorgetownUniversityRoundTableon LanguagesandLinguisticspublishesitsproceedingeveryyear;itsofferingshavemuchofinterestto thoseseekinginformationonbilingualismandbilingualeducationintheUnitedStates. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IwishtoacknowledgeJoanStrouse,JuliaRichards,DianneBowcock,MariaDalupan,andNancy Hombergerfortheirhelpinthepreparationofthischapter.IalsowanttothankGeraldWardforhis technicalassistance. BIBLIOGRAPHY AcademyforEducationalDevelopmentandtheEdwardW.HazenFoundation.1982."ANew DirectionforBilingualEducationinthe1980s."Focus,No.10(NationalClearinghousefor BilingualEducation). 557

AmbertAlbaN.,andSarahE.Melendez.1985.BilingualEducation:ASourcebook.NewYork: GarlandPublishing,Inc. AriasM.Beatriz,andRichardNavarro.1981."TitleVII,BilingualEducation:DevelopingIssuesof DiversityandEquity."IFGPolicyPerspectives(StanfordInstituteforResearchonEducational FinanceandGovernance).Autumn. BakerKeith,andAdrianaA.deKanter.1983.BilingualEducation:AReappraisalofFederalPolicy. Lexington,Mass.:D.C.Heath. BellTerrellH.1984.TheConditionofBilingualEducationintheNation.Washington,D.C.:U.S. DepartmentofEducation. BendersonAlbert.1983."ForeignLanguagesintheSchools."Focus,No.12(EducationalTesting Service). BrodR.I.1980.LanguageStudyforthe1980s:ReportsoftheMLSACLSLanguageTaskForces. NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica. BrownGeorgeH.,NanL.Rosen,SusanT.Hill,andMichaelA.Olivas.1981.TheConditionof EducationforHispanicAmericans.Washington,D.C.:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics. CaliforniaStateDepartmentofEducation.1984.StudiesonImmersionEducation:ACollectionfor UnitedStatesEducators.Sacramento:CaliforniaStateDepartmentofEducation. CazdenCourtney.1984.EffectiveInstructionalPracticesinBilingualEducation.Washington,D.C.: NationalInstituteofEducation. ConklinNancyFaires,andMargaretA.Lourie.1983.AHostofTongues:LanguageCommunitiesin theUnitedStates.NewYork:FreePress. CorreaZoliYole.1981."TheLanguageofItalianAmericans."InLanguagesintheUSA,ed.C.A. FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.23956. FallowsJames.1983."ImmigrationHowIt'sAffectingUs."TheAtlanticMonthly,November,pp. 45106. FergusonCharlesA.,andShirleyBriceHeath,eds.1981.LanguageintheUSA.NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress. FishmanJoshuaA.1966."TheHistoricalandSocialContextsofanInquiryintoLanguage MaintenanceEfforts."InLanguageLoyaltyintheUnitedStates,ed.J.A.Fishmanetal.TheHague: Mouton. .1981."LanguagePolicy:Past,Present,andFuture."InLanguageintheUSA,ed.C.A. FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. .1984."SociolinguisticPerspectivesonSecondLanguageAcquisition."Paperpresentedatthe 13thannualLinguisticsSymposium,"CurrentApproachestoSecondLanguageAcquisition." Milwaukee,March2931. FishmanJoshuaA.,R.L.Cooper,andA.W.Conrad.1977.TheSpreadofEnglish:TheSociologyof EnglishasanAdditionalLanguage.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. GarciaS.O.1983."SociolinguisticsandLanguagePlanninginBilingualEducationforHispanicsin theUnitedStates."InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage44:4354. .1985."BilingualismintheUnitedStates:PresentAttitudesinLightofPastPolicies."InThe EnglishLanguageToday,ed.SidneyGreenbaum.Oxford:PergamonPress,pp.14758. GilbertGlennG.1981."FrenchandGerman:AComparativeStudy."InLanguageintheUSA

558

theUSA,ed.C.A.FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.25772. HenzlVeraM.1981."SlavicLanguagesintheNewEnvironment."InLanguageintheUSA,ed.C. A.FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.291321. HernandezChavezEduardo.1984."TheInadequacyofEnglishImmersionEducationasan EducationalApproachforLanguageMinorityStudentsintheUnitedStates."InStudieson ImmersionEducation:ACollectionforUnitedStatesEducators.Sacramento:CaliforniaState DepartmentofEducation,pp.14483. HouseofRepresentatives,98thCongress.1984.EducationAmendmentsof1984.October2. KellerGaryD.,ed.1983."ChicanoCinema:Research,Reviews,andResources."Specialissueof BilingualReview/Revistabilinge10:2and3(MayDecember). KjolsethRolf.1972."BilingualEducationProgramsintheUnitedStates:ForAssimilationor Pluralism?"InTheLanguageEducationofMinorityChildren,ed.B.Spolsky.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. KlossHeinz.1966."GermanAmericanLanguageMaintenanceEfforts."InLanguageLoyaltyinthe UnitedStates,ed.J.A.Fishmanetal.TheHague:Mouton. .1977.TheAmericanBilingualTradition.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. LabovWilliam.1972.LanguageintheInnerCity:StudiesintheBlackEnglishVernacular. Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. LambertWallaceE.1981.FacesandFacetsofBilingualism.Washington,D.C.:CenterforApplied Linguistics. .1984."AnOverviewofIssuesinImmersionEducation."InStudiesonImmersionEducation: ACollectionforUnitedStatesEducators.Sacramento:CaliforniaStateDepartmentofEducation, pp.830. LeapWilliamL.1981."AmericanIndianLanguages."InLanguageintheUSA,ed.C.A.Ferguson andS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. LeibowitzArnoldH.1971.EducationalPolicyandPoliticalAcceptance:TheImpositionofEnglish astheLanguageofInstructioninAmericanSchools.Washington,D.C.:CenterforApplied Linguistics,ERICClearinghouseforLinguistics. MaeroffGeneI.1984."InterestinForeignLanguagesRises."NewYorkTimes,October24. MarckwardtAlbertH.1958.AmericanEnglish.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. McWilliamsCarey.1949.NorthfromMexico.Philadelphia:J.J.Lippincott. NicholsJohn.1985."CodificationofNativeAmericanLanguages."Paperpresentedatthe ColloquiumonEthnicityandPublicPolicy,GreenBay,Wisconsin,May910. OxfordR.,L.Pol,D.Lopez,P.Stupp,M.Gendell,andS.Peng.1981."ProjectionsofNonEnglish LanguageBackgroundandLimitedEnglishProficientPersonsintheUnitedStatestotheYear 2000:EducationalPlanningintheDemographicContext."NABEJournal5,3:129. PaulstonChristinaB.1981."BilingualismandEducation."InLanguageintheUSA,ed.C.A. FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.46485. .1985."LinguisticConsequencesofEthnicityandNationalisminMultilingualSettings."Paper presentedattheConferenceontheEducationalPoliciesandthe 559

MinoritySocialGroupsExperts'MeetingorganizedbyCERI/OECD,Paris,January1618. PierceBessie.1936.HistoryofChicago.NewYork:A.A.Knopf. President'sCommissiononForeignLanguageandInternationalStudies.1979.StrengthThrough Wisdom:ACritiqueofU.S.Capability.Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice. RotbergIrisC.1984."BilingualEducationPolicyintheUnitedStates."Prospects14,1:13347. RuizRichard.1985.LanguageTeachinginAmericanEducation.Washington,D.C.:National InstituteofEducation. St.LouisPublicSchools.1876.AnnualReportoftheBoardofDirectorsoftheSt.LouisPublic SchoolsfortheYearEndingAugust1,1875.St.Louis:St.LouisPublicSchools. TikunoffW.,andJ.VazquezFaria.1982."SuccessfulInstructionforBilingualSchooling."Peabody JournalofEducation59,4:23471. TochThomas.1984."TheEmergingPoliticsofLanguage."EducationWeek3,20,February8. TroikeRudolph.1981."ASynthesisofResearchonBilingualEducation."EducationalLeadership 14:498504. TwentiethCenturyFund.1983.ReportoftheTwentiethCenturyTaskForceonFederalElementary andSecondaryEducationPolicy.NewYork:TwentiethCenturyFund. U.S.BureauoftheCensus.1983.ConditionofHispanicsinAmericaToday.Washington,D.C.:U.S. BureauoftheCensus,September. U.S.CommissiononCivilRights.1972.TheExcludedStudent:EducationalPracticesAffecting MexicanAmericansintheSouthwest(ReportHI).Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrinting Office. U.S.DepartmentofEducation.1984.DepartmentofEducationGrantReport.Washington,D.C.: DepartmentofEducation,November29. VeltmanCalvin.1983.LanguageShiftintheUnitedStates.Berlin:Mouton. WaggonerDorothy.1984."MinorityLanguagePopulationsfromthe1980Census."Forum (NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation),7,5:57,October/November. WeinbergMeyer.1979.AChancetoLearn.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. WongSauling.1985."TheLanguageNeedsofAsianImmigrantsandRefugeesintheUnited States."PaperpresentedattheColloquiumonEthnicityandPublicPolicy,GreenBay,Wisconsin, May910. ZentellaAnaCelia.1981."LanguageVarietyAmongPuertoRicans."InLanguageintheUSA,ed. C.A.FergusonandS.B.Heath.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. 560

27 SOMEASPECTSOFBILINGUALISMAND
1 BILINGUALEDUCATIONINZAIRE LufuluaboMukebaBeforecolonization,CentralAfricawasinhabitedmainlybytheBantupeople butalsobynonBantupeople.Somegroupslivedintheforest,andotherslivedinthesavanna. Someofthemsharedpoliticalorganizations,withouthavingsimilarsocioculturalvalues.Others sharedsimilarsocioculturalvaluesaswellasasimilarpoliticalorganization.Through geographicalproximity,migration,orresettlement,theymergedorsplit.Thecolonialperiod broughtaboutafundamentalchange,withtheincorporationofallthegroupsintoonesingle politicalandeconomicorganization.Ithasbeenreportedthat250culturalgroupsinZairespeak 250languages.Howhavetheseunrelatedgroupscommunicatedinthis"TowerofBabel?"How hassociety,historically,attemptedtoorganizetheirlinguisticbehaviorthroughtheeducational institution?Asanthropologistsandpoliticalscientistsdidinthepast,sociolinguistsarefocusing ontheexistenceofsubsystemswithinthelargercontextandtheuseofkeyconceptsliketribe, ethnicity,andculturalpluralismintheirattempttoexplainthelanguagesituationofplural societies.Thischapterdrawsonarticles,books,anddissertationsonZaire.Itspurposeis(1)to describethelinguisticsituationofZaire'sculturalgroupsintheirhistoricalcontact,and(2)to showtherelationshipifanybetweenthesocialorganizationandtheschoolsystemastheydeal withlanguageproblems. DESCRIPTIONOFETHNICGROUPS 1. TheNorthernUplandsandForestFringeNonBantuPeoples.Twentypercentofthe populationthatspeaknonBantulanguagesstretchacrosstheNorthernUplands(Ngbandi, Ngbaka)tothefarnortheast(Zande,Mangbetu). 561

2 TheBantuof . theCuvette. Livingnorth andsouthof theZaireRiver fromKinshasa toKisangani arealarge numberof diverseBantu Thissketchypresentationofthevariousethniccommunitiesgivesaselective speaking outlineofmostofthecommonlyknowngroups,andinmanyinstancesrelated groups:the groupshavebeenincludedinthemajorones. Ngombeand theMongo. AssuggestedbyBruceFetter(1983:12526),thepeopleofZairewere 3 Bantu organizedinawidevarietyofpoliticalunitsinprecolonialtimes:empires, . Speakersofthe kingdoms,andstates.Relativelylargestatesdevelopedinthesavannas,whereas EasternForest thepoliticalentitiesoftheforesttendedtobesmaller.Insomeareas,thelarger andPlain(the politicalunitwasthevillage.Despitepoliticalfragmentationandgeographical Lega)andthe segmentation,thevariousgroupssharedacommonculture. Eastern Highland(the ETHNICGROUPSANDTHEIRRELATIONSHIP Shi)stretch alongthe ThevariedoriginsoftheCongolesecreateddifferencesofdetailintheir territory's patternsofsubsistenceandmodeofsociopoliticalorganization.Nevertheless, easternfrontier theirmigrationandresettlementwereconducivetointerpenetrationof intheareasjust communitieswithnewtraditionsandthetransferofaspectsofculturefromone westofthe communitytoanother.Shiftingcultivationduetolimitedfertilityofthesoilin greatlakesof theequatorialforestandotherpartsofZaireandthecomparativelysimple CentralAfrica. agriculturaltechnologyresultedinacontinuousrelocationofvillages. 4 TheBantu . Peoplesofthe AccordingtoJanVansina(1963:375),tradewasconductedovergreater distanceseitherbetweenculturallydifferentpeopleswithinasinglestateor Savanna.In betweenneighboringpeoples.Anothertypeoftrade,thelongdistancetrade southeastern involvingtheexchangeofEuropeangoods,wasintroducedinCentralAfricain Zaire, thefifteenthcentury.Bytheendofthenineteenthcentury,thewholeofCentral stretching Africawas between Kinsangami 562 andUpper Katangaarethe Bembaandthe Kaonde communities; andinthe southwestern communities, theLunda. 5 TheBantu . Peoplesofthe

Southern Uplands. Stretching acrossmuchof thenorthand westofthe copperbeltare thesouthern savannaLuba communities subcategorized asLuba Katanga (LubaKatanga proper, Kaniok),Luba Kasai(Luba Lulua,Kete, Luntu),and Songye. 6 TheBantu . Peoplesofthe Kwango Kasai.The Tio,Sakata,the YansMbum, andtheLele communities stretchsouth andnorthof thelowerKasai Riverandthe KwaRiver. Livingbetween theKwango Riverandthe KasaiRiverare theYaka,the Mbala,the Pende,andthe Chokwe communities. 7 TheKongo . Peopleoccupy allofLower Congoandare alsoaBantu speaking community.

coveredbyawebofregionaltradesystemsthatfurnishedivoryandslavesintheCongo.Along thesetraderoutesandtheconnectedregionalcircuits,thepracticeofcultivatingimported Americanplantsspread.MaizeandmaniocwereintroducedinCentralAfricaaroundtheendof thesixteenthcenturyandby1900hadcoveredalmosttheentireCongoarea. Fettershowshowbusinessarrangementsmadeinthesavannakingdomsbetweenforeigntraders andlocaltradersconnectedtotheIndianOceanslavemarketresultedinthecoalescenceofsome ofthewellknownZairian"tribes."TheseincludedLumpungu'sBenaLuluaKingdom. Despitethepoliticaldiversity,muchoftheterritorywaspartofasinglenaturaltransportation network,thebasinoftheCongoRiver.BythenineteenthcenturywhenEuropeanslearnedofthe extentofthesetradingnetworks,theybegantoseetheCongoasasingleunitoftradeand, ultimately,ofcolonization(Fetter,1983:126). TheporteragesystemthatwasintroducedinCentralAfrica,withtheEuropeanpenetrationfor thetransportationofgoodsoverlandtothecoast,wasoneofthedeterminantsthatplayedapart inbringingethnicgroupsintocontact.In1893,someeightythousandloads(of65poundseach) werecarriedbyporters.ThelowerCongopopulationcouldnotsupplyenoughworkers,somen hadtobebroughtinfromotherregions(Fehderau,1966:31). Thecreationofanetworkofcolonialinfrastructurealsocontributedtothemixingof populations.TheBelgiancolonizerscreatedadministrativecenters(capitalofcolony,capitalof province,headquartersofdistrict,headquartersofterritory).Mostoftheseadministrativecenters ultimatelybecamecities.Themissionaries'centralandboardingschools,alongwiththeirhealth carefacilities,constitutedanotherlocusofopportunityfortheCongoleseofdifferent backgrounds.Tradingcentersalongtheriversandtownsacquiredapopulationofpeoplefrom many"tribal"areas.Asworkopportunitiesincreased,manyAfricanswereencouraged sometimesforcedtoleavetheirhomestotakepositionsthatcouldnotbefilledbylocalpeople. Manyorphanedchildrenand"homeless"adultswerebroughtfromUpperCongoregionstobe educatedandtoworkinLowerCongogovernmentcenters.TheorganizationoftheCongolese Army(ForcePublique)wasalsoinstrumentalinbringingtogetherpeoplefrommanydifferent regions(Fehderau,1966:3334).Africanswhohadreceivedtheirtraininginruralareassoon becamediscontentedwithvillagelife.Manyschoolleaverssuccumbedtotheattractionsof highersalariesincolonialcenterswheretheyworkedforthegovernmentorforprivate companies(Fetter,1982:11). Intheabsenceofadequatestatisticsontheethnicidentificationofspeakersofspecific languages,onlytheroughestestimatescanbemade.About80percentofthepopulationspeaks Bantulanguages.Theremaining20percentofthepopulationinthenorthernmostportionandin theeastalongtheUeleRiverspeaksAdamawaEasternandSudaniclanguages. Linguistically,ZaireisaverycomplexareainAfrica.Arecentinvestigation(Mutombo, 1984:2747)hasdistinguishedalmost250languages.Oneshould 563

agreewithDonaldG.Morrisonetal.(1972:15)thatlanguagedistributionisdifficulttoassessin Africabecausescholarsdisagreeonwhetheraparticulardesignationreferstoadialect,asingle language,oragroupofcloselyrelatedlanguages.Thenumberofindependentlanguagesspoken correspondsonlyapproximatelytothenumberofethnicgroups(Kaplan,1979:122).Thisnumber maybereducedifmutuallyintelligiblelanguagesaretreatedtogether.Bythesametoken,while creatingthe"mythofaCongoleseTowerofBabel"asFabian(1983:179)callsit,thisnumber dramatizestheimportanceofbilingualismandbilingualeducation. WiththeemergenceofSwahili,Ciluba,Lingala,andKikongoaslinguafrancas,thenineteenth centurywascrucialinthecurrentlanguageconfigurationinZaire.Swahiliwasintroducedintothe countryespeciallybytheZanzibariSwahilisduringtheslavingoperationsofthenineteenthcentury andisspokenextensivelyinthenortheast,east,andsouth,morespecificallyintheShabaregion,in Kivu,andinHautZaire.LingaladevelopedalongtheCongoRiverinthe1880sinresponsetothe needforacommonlanguage,anditisnowusedextensivelyinthenorthandnorthwest,more specificallyinKinshasa,thecapitalcity;inNorthernBandundu;intheEquatorRegion;andinpart ofUpperZaire.LingalaisalsothelanguageoftheZairianNationalArmyandofZairianmodern music.Itsuseasthedominantlinguafrancaisgrowingparticularlywiththeencouragementof PresidentMobutu.KikongoisusedprimarilyinthenarrowneckofterritorybetweenKinshasaand theAtlanticOcean.Amodifiedform,Kituba,isspokenintheregionimmediatelyeastofKinshasa, Bandunduregion.Ciluba,sometimesspelledTshiluba,emergedprimarilyasanethniclanguageand spreadinthe1890'sintheKasaiunderthemissionaries'activitiesbeforethecolonialadministration hadthetimetolookintothematter.ItisusedinWesternKasaiandEasternKasai,locatedin southcentralZaire,whereithasenjoyedconsiderablediffusionamongalltheneighboringgroups. CilubaissometimesconfusedinsomeliteraturewithKiluba,acloselyrelatedlanguagespokenin Shaba.Thesefourlanguageshavebeenrecognizedsincecolonialtimesasnationallanguagesfor certaingovernmentfunctionssuchaselementaryeducation,proceedingsofthelowercourtsof justice,radioandTVbroadcasting,andlocalgovernmentadministrationatthetownshipandvillage levels(Bokamba,1976:116)intheirrespectiveareaswherelocallanguages,despitetheirlimited scope,haveahighsurvivalrateandarenotinimminentdangerofextinction.Despitesomeattempts (Bruhn,1984:3),therearenoaccuratestatisticsonthefourmajorZairianlanguagesapartfrom someimpressionisticestimates(Bokamba,1977:120).Noreallyprecisestatisticsexistconcerning thenumberanddistributionofspeakersoftwoormorelanguagesinthenationsoftheworld.This canbeaccountedforpartlybythefactthatthereisnowidelyaccepteddefinitionoftheconceptof bilingualism(Grosjean,1982:2). TheBelgianswereabletointroduceFrenchastheofficiallanguageandeventoattemptsomeuseof Flemish(Ellington,1973:20)butwithoutmuchsuccess.Indeed,ZairewastheonlyAfricancolony undertheadministrationofabilingual 564

colonialpower,thusmakinganalreadycomplexlinguisticsituationevenmoredifficult.Spoken countrywidebyabout4percentofthepopulationin1975(Faiketal.,1977:3),Frenchenjoysall theprestigeofbeingthelanguagespokenbyaminority;itisbelievedtobetheunifying language.DavidDalby(1980:42)iscorrectinobservingthat,althoughaEuropeanlanguage mayberetainedastheofficialandmainlanguageinAfricasouthoftheSahara,itisevidentthat Africanlanguageswillplayanincreasinglyimportantrole.AlthoughFrenchisusedwidelyasa secondlanguagebytheeducatedeliteofZaire,ithasnowheresupplantedanyindigenous Africanlanguage. BILINGUALISM Twotypesofbilingualismshouldbedistinguished.Thefirsttypedescribesbilingualismin Zairianlanguagesandistermedmassbilingualism,thatis,theusebyanentirepopulationora sectionofthepopulationoftwoormorelinguisticsystems(Marcellesi,1981:5).Thistypeof bilingualismisdiscussedunderseveralheadings:BantuandnonBantu(Bokamba,1981:5), generalizedbilingualism,andAfricanbilingualism(CamandLeBoul,1976a:5;Houis, 1962:111). ThesecondtypeofbilingualisminZaireisinstitutional(Houis,1962:112)orstatebilingualism( CamandLeBoul,1976a:5).Itspreadsthroughoutthecountryandcoincideswiththe distributionofstateapparatusesandagents,theprivatemodernsector,andmissionaryworkand schooling.ThistypedealswithspeakersofZairianlanguage(s)andFrench. AccordingtoB.Kimputu(1978:44),Zairiansbelongtoseveralspeechcommunitiesatthesame time:(1)theethnicspeechcommunity,wherethecommunicationinvolvesspeakersfromthe sameethnicgroupandthelocallanguageisused;(2)thelargerspeechcommunity,wherethe interactioninvolvesspeakersfromdifferentethnicbackgroundswhocancommunicateina regionallanguageoralinguafranca;and(3)theFrancophonespeechcommunity,wherethe interactioninvolvesspeakerswhohavereachedtheeighthgrade(Faiketal.,1977:5). Everytrip,changeoflocation,transfer,orrelationshipoutsidethespeechcommunityinvolving somedurationoftimeresultsinsomeacquisitionofanadditionallanguage(Kimputu,1978:48). UsefultotheunderstandingofbilingualisminZairearesomeconceptsdiscussedbyKimputuin hissurveyofsomeKinshasastudents(1978:54).TheL1(firstlanguage)isthefirstlanguage acquiredduringthespeaker'schildhood.Thismaybetheparents'tongue,thelinguafranca,or evenFrench.ThePT(parents'tongue)istheethniclanguageofthespeaker'smotherorfather. TheEL(ethniclanguage)maybethespeaker'sfirstlanguageifthatperson'searlychildhoodwas spentinhisorherethniccommunity.TheML(majorlanguage)isthedominantlanguage,the mostusedinthespeaker'severydaylife.ThisMLisnotnecessarilyhisorherL1orEL.Itmay wellbealinguafrancaorFrench.TheL1wasatthesametimethePTof50.4percentofthe students(Kimputu,1978:60);4.7percenthadtwoL1's 565

simultaneously.ThisisoftenthecaseinurbanareaswheretheELisspokenathomewhilethe linguafrancaisusedoutsidethehome.TheL1onlywasspokenby0.9percent,and49percenthad anL1differentfromtheirEL. Zairianlanguagesarelearnedinformallyathome,orthroughcontactswithmembersofaspeech community(CamandLeBoul,1976a:17).Theirformalacquisitionthroughtheschoolsystemis limitedtoafewyearsofelementaryschoolandconcernsonlyafewZairianlanguages,mainlythe fourlinguafrancas.Atotalof14.6percentofthestudentswereabletolearnZairianlanguages throughtheschoolsystem.ExcludingFrench,therateofbilingualisminKimputu'srespondentswas 2.5languages,andbyincludingFrenchitwas3.5.BothLingalaandSwahiliwerealmostnever reportedasethniclanguages,althoughLingalaissometimesconsideredaregionallanguage (Kimputu,1978:7172).CilubaandKikongoareethniclanguages,L1,regionallanguagesand linguafrancas(Kimputu,1978:7677). In1975,itwasestimatedthat4percentofZairianscouldspeakFrench.Thespeakersincludeparty officials,administrators,governmentandcorporationofficials,intellectuals,teachers,lawyers, doctors,civilservants,technicians,journalists,gradeschoolandcollegestudents,andafew businessmen.ForeveryFrenchspeakerfromaruralarea,therewerethirteenfromanurbanareain 195557.ThestudyestimatedthatFrenchspeakerswerebetweenfifteenandfortyfouryearsoldin 1975.ForonefemaleFrenchspeaker,therewerefortymalesin195557.Frenchismostlyused betweeneducatedZairianswhodonothaveanycommonZairianlanguageandbyaveryfew Zairiancollegegraduatecouples,particularlythosewhostudiedinEuropeandwhoarein interethnicmarriages. BILINGUALEDUCATION
2 ColonialEducation

DuringtheCongoFreeStateperiod,theinternationalnatureoftheEuropeanpersonnelestablished amultilingualrealitydespitethegovernment'sunilingualpolicy.Frenchinstructionlaggedorwas nonexistent.However,FrenchwasdeclaredtheofficiallanguageoftheCongoFreeState. Governmentinstructiontoadministrators,armyofficials,andschoolofficialsconstantlyenjoined theuseofFrenchwithCongolese.Frenchwasarequiredsubjectinthegovernmentcolonies scolairesestablishedbythe1890EducationActandinalmostallsecularvocationalschools(coles professionnelles).OnlyintheschoolsforclerkswasFrenchtobethelanguageofinstruction. InstructioninFrenchwasnotrequiredbythe1892EducationAct.The1906Concordat,an agreementbetweenthecolonialgovernmentandtheVaticanwhichcoveredamongotherthings Catholicmissionschools,stipulatedthatsubsidizedCatholicschoolscouldestablish,inagreement withthecolonialgovernment,theirownschoolcurriculumaslongasthenationallanguages (FrenchandFlemish)wereincluded. 566

Leopold'spolicyofattemptingtodiffuseFrenchthroughouttheCongolesepopulationfailed becausemanyofficialsdidnotenforcetheofficiallanguagepolicyeveninthecoloniesscolaires. TheBelgiandirectorsofCatholicschoolsoftendifferedwiththeadministrationontheuseofa Europeanlanguage,andsomeofthemdidnotspeakFrench.TheGovernorGeneralfoundtheir effortsinadequate.AtKisantu,instructionwascarriedoutinKikongo.TheWhiteFathersmoved directlyfromSwahilitoLatin.ManyCatholicmissionariesspokeFlemishandlikethe ProtestantsusedFrenchonlypoorlyasasecondlanguage.Otherswerereluctanttopropagate FrenchbecauseoftheconflictinBelgiumbetweentheFlemingsandtheWalloons. InterconfessionalrivalrywasthemajorimpetusforwhatlittleFrenchwasofferedinCatholic parochialschools.CatholicmissionarieswereforcedtoofferonemodernEuropeanlanguageto competewithProtestantsforconverts.Beginningin1905,fourofthenineCatholicmissionorders (Redemptorists,Jesuits,SacredHeartFathers,andtheBelgianHolyGhostFathers)finally introducedFrenchinurbanschools,oronmissionstationsforadvancedpupilsoutoffearthat Protestanttrainedpeoplewouldgetthebestjobs.Europeanlanguagesweretobedroppedwhen therewasnoProtestantcompetition. TheColonialCharterof1908transferredsovereigntyfromLeopoldIItotheBelgianParliament. Inasmuchasthe1890and1892EducationActsandthe1906Concordatremainedineffectafter annexation,mostCatholicschoolswerenotsubsidizeduntilWorldWarII,andthereforewerenot coveredbythislegislation.Catholicmissionariesignoredtheprovisionsofthe1890EducationAct andthe1906Concordat.Frenchwasanunnecessaryintermediary,particularlyasitmadeavailable nonreligiousideasandtheskillsforemploymentoutsidethemissionorbit. SomeProtestantmissionariesinthe1880'sand1890's,wishingtoteachaworldlanguage, introducedtheirmaternalEnglishwhichtheyfoundeasierthanFrench.Politicalconsideration, however,ledLeopoldtoforbidthediffusionofEnglish.Thegovernmentthreatenedtosupervisethe curriculum,andconsequently,bytheearly1890'stheProtestantmissionarieshaddiscontinued formalEnglishinstructionintheirschools.WhilehedidnotlegallyprohibittheirteachingEnglish, hedidnotrequirethattheyusetheFrenchlanguage.WiththecurtailmentofEnglishinstruction,a numberofProtestantsprincipallytheBaptistsandtheDisciplesofChristshiftedtoFrench,and despitethefactthatfewofthemspokethislanguage,someoftheirschools,beginningintheearly 1890's,becametheleadingcentersofFrenchinstruction.However,thegovernmentdidnotand couldnotgivethemfavoredtreatmentinordertoencourageotherschoolstoofferFrenchaswell. AlthoughaminorityofProtestantmissionariespropagatedaEuropeanlanguage,itdidnotmean thatFrenchbecamearequiredsubjectorthemediumofinstruction.ThemajorityofProtestant missionaries,liketheirCatholiccounterparts,werenotinfavorofteachingamodernEuropean language.FrenchlanguageinstructionremainedatopicfordiscussioninProtestantcircles.Atthe fifthGeneralConferenceofProtestantMissionariesin1909,somemain 567

tainedthatFrenchinstructionwasanecessitytokeepboysfromgoingtotheJesuitStationtostudy Frenchsoastogetjobswiththestateandtherailways.Butthemajorityviewdisagreedand recommendedconcentrationontheBibleinthevernacular. Thus,thelearningofFrenchwasregardedbybothProtestantsandCatholicsasameansforAfrican mobility,aswellasathreattomissionarygoalsandwhitesupremacy. The1925EducationPlanrecommendedthatpreferencebegiventothecommerciallanguageifit wererelatedtothemothertongueandifitwerenotamerelinguafranca.Withthe1929Education Code,thegovernmentofficiallydroppedtheobligatorynationallanguages(i.e.,Frenchand Flemish)frommostsubsidizedschools.Frenchwastobearequiredsubjectinupperprimary schoolsandpostprimarynormalandvocationalschoolslocatedinurbanareas.Onlypostprimary schoolsforclerksweretouseFrenchasthelanguageofinstruction(Yates,1980:27173). Withtherevisedcurriculaof1929and1938,Frenchwastobeintroducedasasubjectinthe primaryschoolfromthethirdgradeandasamediumofinstructionatthesecondaryschoollevel, theformerlyusedindigenouslanguagebecomingasubject(Polom,1968:302).The1948 reorganizationofeducationcontinuedtomakeFrencharequiredsubjectbeginningwiththethird gradeonlyinurbanschoolsandthemediumofinstructiononlyintheschoolsforclerks,nowcalled colesmoyenness,andinthenewlycreatedsixyearacademicsecondaryschoolsfortheCongolese. Flemishbecamearequiredsubjectaswell,beginningwiththetenthgrade.Theuseofregional languagesasthemediaofinstructionwasstressedbythe1948EducationCode(Yates,1980,273 76). Thecreationofthemetropolitantypeschoolsin1954inauguratedtheuseofFrenchasthemedium ofinstructionattheprimarylevelfromthefirstyearon,andthelinguafrancawastaughtonlyas subject.Ininterracialschools,allteachingwasdoneinFrench,andDutch(Flemish)wastaughtasa secondlanguage.Until1954,mostmissionariespersistedinusingthevernacularasthemediumof instruction(Ndoma,1977:101205).TheuseofFrenchatalllevelsofformaleducationwasnot enforceduntil195859(Bokamba,1976:112). PostcolonialEducation Atthetimeofindependencein1960,thepercentageoftheschoolagepopulationenrolledwas 98.26percentinprimaryschools;1.7percentinsecondaryschools;and0.04percentinpost secondaryschools(ColemanandNgonkwey,1983:57).Morethan70percentoftheprimary schoolsprovidedonlythefirsttwogrades(George,1966:48).Instructionwasinthevernacular,not onlyforbroaderdiffusionofChristianitybuttoavoidwhatwasconsidereduselesselitist pretensionsandaspirations.Asthenenvisaged,theavowedaimofeducationwas"toproducebetter Africans,andnotcopiesofEuropeanswhocouldnever 568

bemorethanhumansofathirdcategory"(HanleyinColemanandNgonkwey,1983:58).During thefirstfiveyearsorsoofindependence,therewasneithertimenorinclinationtoreconsider languagepolicy.ItwassufficienttoholdtenaciouslytoFrenchasthelanguageofnationalunity whenunifyingfactorswerescarce(Ellington,1973:20).Butin196162,underthestrong influenceofUNESCO,Frenchbecamethelanguageofinstructioninallprimaryschools (ColemanandNgonkwey,1983:58).Theprimaryeducationreformof196162wasadoptedin 1963andintroducedatthebeginningofthe196364schoolyear.Thereformcalledforteaching inFrenchassoonaspossible,withthevernacularlanguagesusedonlyduringaverybriefperiod afterchildrenenteredschool.Inmanyplaces,theprimaryprogramwasgiveninthelocal languageuntilthethird,fourth,or(insomeinstances)thefifthyear(George,1966:8384).The programprovidedoneperiodperweekfortheteachingofCongoleselanguagesandculturefrom thirdgradetosixthgrade.ThisteachingofCongoleselanguagesandculturewasoptional, however,(CamandLeBoul,1976b:53).Anumberofschoolsdidnotteachthem.Inastudy evaluatingthe1963reform,CamandLeBoul(1976b:3562)revealthat: 89.36percentofelementaryschoolteacherswereusingaCongoleselanguageatrecesswith fellowteachers,despitetheregulation. 62.66percentofteachersletstudentsdothesame. 60percentofteacherswereequippedwithteachingmaterialsfortheteachingofCongolese languagesmostlypublishedbetween1935and1960. 6.89percentoftheteachersdidnothaveanymaterialsatall. Wheretheprogramwasinterpretedasbeingoptional,83.55percentofteachersdidteach Congoleselanguages,72.4percentdidittoexplainFrenchwords,and70.21percentdiditto explainideas. TheteachingofCongoleselanguageswaslimitedtothemajorlanguageoftheclassroomor tothelinguafrancaofthearea. FewtextbooksinCongoleselanguageswereavailableforstudents;juvenileliteraturewas nonexistent. In1974,thegovernmentinitiatedanewprogramaimedatreintroducingandreinforcing instructioninCongoleselanguages,morespecificallythefourlinguafrancasfromfirstgrade withFrenchbeginningonlyinthirdgradeasasubject. Intheearly1970's,Zairewascharacterizedbythepolicyofauthenticitywhich,inmattersof education,wastranslatedinto"goinglocal"linguistically,asEllington(1973:20)putsit.Within arelativelybriefperiod,the"returntoauthenticity"changedthenamesoftheCongoRiver,the country,streets,andcitiesaswellasthepersonalnamesofZaire'snearly21millioncitizens. TheproposalcameafterthefirstconferenceofZairianlinguistsinMay1974. 569

TheCentredeLinguistiqueThoriqueetApplique(CELTA)wascharged,amongotherthings, withworkingonmanualsandtextbooks.AccordingtoAlainTashdjan(1981:5154),theactual instruction(intheformoflinguafrancas)didnotmeettheneedsofthepoliticaldecision.No teachertrainingwasplanned,nobudgetwasallocatedtoimplementtheprogram,andno informationcampaignwasinitiatedinthecommunitytomakepeopleawareofthesocioculturaland socioeconomicimportanceofthereform.Furthermore,alreadyestablishedprejudicesandattitudes againstZairianlanguagesandinfavorofFrenchwerenotdealtwith.Asof1976,areversalwasseen inthe1974reformwiththereintroductionofFrenchbeginninginthefirstgrade,evenifthiswas oralFrench. Anaspectoftheproblemofthe1974reformseldomdiscussedisthefactthatthetaskofcurriculum developmentwasassignedtoCELTA,whichwasalreadyaFrenchProjectcreatedforother purposes.CELTAispartofacooperativeprojectfortheexpansionofstandardFrenchandisoneof theCenters/InstitutesforAppliedLinguisticsfoundedduringthe1960sattheFrancophoneAfrican universitieswithFrenchtechnicalassistance.TheaimoftheseCenterswastoimproveandincrease theteachingofFrenchinFrancophonecountriesthroughaseriesofcontrastive,statistical,and sociolinguisticstudiesofthemajorlocalAfricanlanguagesinordertogaugetheirrelativeimpact onFrenchandstudiesonlexicalvarietiesofFrenchinAfrica(Brann,1982:35359).Apparently, theseweretwodifferentprojectsinvolvingcompetingvestedinterests. LANGUAGEANDRELIGION AboutonehalfoftheZairianpopulationareChristians.Ofthese,aboutthreequartersareRoman CatholicandonequarterProtestant.MostofthenonChristiansadheretoeithertraditionalreligions orsyncreticsects(BackgroundNotes,U.S.DepartmentofState,1981:3). ReligionhasneverbeenakeyissueinthelivesofZairians,andlessinregardtolanguageproblems. Nevertheless,duringthecolonialperiod,bothProtestantandCatholicmissionariestookdifferent approachestothestudiesofCongoleselanguages(Bokamba,1977:197).Itwasnotuncommonto hearabout"Protestant"aswellas"Catholic"Lingala,Ciluba,Kikongo.Generally,Catholicand Protestantmissionariesusedthesamelanguage,althoughveryoftenindifferentdialects(Ndoma, 1984:194). AccordingtoBarbaraA.Yates,mostCatholicmissionariesintheirproselytizingmethodsuseda singlenativelanguageinreligiousservices,schools,communication,andthepreparationofwritten materials.Thus,theRedemptoristsandtheJesuitsintheLowerCongoadoptedKikongo,theSacred HeartFathersandtheWhiteFathersinEasternCongousedSwahili,whiletheScheutistsspoke CilubainKasaiandLingalaontheUpperRiver. Protestantspreferredthevernacularspokenbythelargestnumberofpeoplenearthemissionstation. Theyworkedwithindividualsandwantedeachofthem 570

tohavedirectaccesstotheScripturesinthevernacular.Therefore,Protestantmissionariesrejected theuseofregionallanguages. Atthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury,Catholicsgavemoreattentiontolocallanguagesinan efforttocompetewithneighboringProtestantstations.SomeProtestantmissionarieshadsecond thoughtsabouttheefficiencyoftheirpolicy.Theyrealizedthattheuseofmaternallanguages increasedcostsandstrainedhumanresources.Protestantsocietiesagreedthateachsocietyshould beestablishedinadifferentlanguagearea. DOUBLEOVERLAPPINGDIGLOSSIA Frenchenjoystheprestigeofbeingtheofficiallanguageandthemediumofinstruction.AsYates (1980:278)argues,intheCongoproficiencyinFrenchhasbeenaneasilydiscerniblepublicbadge ofsocialesteem.Asinthecolonialpast,thepossessionofskillsinaninternationallanguagelike Frenchwillcontinuetoprovideanentreetoeconomicopportunitiesandsocialmobilityin contemporaryZaire.Frenchlanguageskillswillcontinuetobeaneconomicassetandastatus symboldifferentiatingtheelitefromthemasses. LessprestigeandlowstatusarestillattachedtofluencyinAfricanlanguagesingeneral.Ethnicand locallanguagesinparticularfallintothecategoryofsubordinatelanguages.Theyarenativetothe areawheretheyarespokenandareassociatedwithrurallife,poverty,illiteracy,andignorance. Theyhavebeenreducedtolowstatusbytheriseofthefourlinguafrancasintroducedtotheareaat alaterperiod. Thepositionofthefourlinguafrancas(Ciluba,Kikongo,Lingala,andSwahili)isambiguous.They aresuperordinateinrelationtotheethniclanguages.ButinrelationtoFrench,theyaresubordinate. Onlyrudimentaryliteracyispossibleinthem.ThelinguafrancasofZairearenowinvolvedinwhat RalphFasold(1984:45)callstwodiglossicsystems:astheHighlanguageswiththevariousZairian ethniclanguagesasLows,andasLowlanguageswithFrenchastheHigh.Thisintersectionbetween twodevelopingdiglossiasituationsdescribedbyAbdulazizMkilifi(1978:134)isnameddouble overlappingdiglossiabyFasold(1984:45). Theirprestigehasbeenincreasinglygrowing.ThisisparticularlythecasewithLingala,whichis becoming,tosomeextent,alanguageofsocialmobility,economicopportunity,andpolitical promotion.ThestatusofLingalaisapeculiaroneanddeservesspecialattention. LANGUAGEATTITUDES ThediscussionoflanguageattitudesinZaireherewillbelimitedtothefourlinguafrancas. SwahiliisprobablythelanguagewiththemostpositiveattitudesfrommanypeopleinZaire.Itis saidtobethelanguageofdeferenceandpoliteness,a 571

languagespokeninasoftmanner(Kimputu,1978:277).Partofthepositiveattitudestoward Swahilicanbeaccountedforbythefactthatitisneitherthelanguageofaparticularethnic groupnoralanguageidentifiedwithaspecificareaofthecountry,beingusedinthreeregionsof thecountryoutofeight.TheonlynegativeattitudetowardSwahilicamefrommissionaries duringthecolonialperiod.TheyassociateditwithIslamicinfluence. Lingala,ingeneral,isassociatedwithmixedattitudes.Althoughitisforthemostpartnotan ethniclanguage,itissometimesassociatedwithpeoplecomingfromtheRegionofEquateur. Politically,peoplewouldliketoknowittobeabletounderstandthepoliticalrhetoricmostly deliveredinthatlanguage.Atthesametime,iftheydonotagreewiththepoliticsdeliveredin Lingala,theyexpresstheirdiscontentwithboththeformandcontentofthediscourse. Lingalahasbeenthelanguageofthemilitaryforabouthalfacentury.AspointedoutbyIrving Kaplan(1979:25053),anegativeaspectabouttheZairianArmyhasbeenitslackofaffinityto localpopulations.Themilitaryforces,highlyvisibleinallareasofthecountry,isnotan institutiontowhichordinarycitizensfeltanygreatattachmentoroneinwhichtheyhadanygreat pride.Veryoftentheexactoppositehasbeentruecitizensoftenfeltalienatedfromorabusedby themilitary.Thepresentdaymilitaryforces,adescendantofthecolonialForcePublique, retainedanauraofseparatenessand,likethecolonialforces,hasoftenbeenthoughtofasan instrumentofrepression.Becauseitwasthearmythatwascalledontodealwiththemanyethnic disturbances,secessions,andstudentriots,thepeopleinvolvedinthoseeventsthoughtofthe armyastheenemy.Publicopinionofthemilitarysometimescreatesanegativeattitudetoward Lingala.RecentliteratureonlanguageinZaire(Mutombo,1984:37)hasassociatedLingalawith swindling,fraud,andoppression. AnumberofZairiansobjecttoLingalaonthebasisthatitlacksformsofpolitenessandrespect, andconsiderLingalaa"poor"language(Ellington,1973:2021).Yet,everyZairianlikesthe popularmusicofZairewhoselyricsaremostlyinLingala;theyliketoseeKinshasa,thebig capitalcity,andthentheirattitudeispositive. Cilubaissaidtobeadifficultlanguage,notsoftlyspoken,alanguageofthemosttribalistand arrogantofZairians,andlackingformsofpoliteness(Kimputu,1978:243,277).BothCilubaand Kikongohavebeenmorenarrowlyidentifiedwithparticularethnicgroups,andareconsequently lessappealingdespitetheirvitalityandlargenumberofspeakers(Ellington,1973:20).Kikongo isperceivedascarryingabadaccent(Kimputu,1978:244). LANGUAGEMAINTENANCEANDLANGUAGESPREAD LanguagesinAfricaappeartohaveahighsurvivalrate,andveryfewareinimminentdangerof extinction.Thisisconfirmedbythefactthatmaintenanceisoftencharacteristicofbilingual communities.ThesurveybyKimputu(p.65)revealedthat93percentofthestudentshadavery goodknowledgeoftheirfirst 572

languages.Twolanguageshadaparticularlyhighrate:Lingala(97.5percent)andCiluba(97 percent).ThemaintenanceofCilubahasoftenbeenoverstated.Kimputu(p.66)accountsforits "excellent"maintenancebytheprofounddedicationofitsnativespeakers.HeaddsthattheLuba speakersconsideritamoralobligationtopassitonfromparentstotheiroffspring.Morethan maintenance,thisseemstobeacaseoflanguageloyalty.ThesituationofLingalaisoneoflanguage spreadratherthanlanguagemaintenance. Languageshiftisknownparticularlyamongethnicgroupsrepresentedbyveryfewspeakersin urbanareas.Thesespeakersdonotalwayshavetheopportunitytousetheirlanguage(Kimputu, 1978:68).Languageshiftalsooccurswithinterethnicmarriagesorexogamy.Inhisstudy,Kimputu foundthatalmosthalfofthestudentsbornfromsuchmarriagesspokethefather'slanguage,and anotherhalfspokethemother'slanguage.Only26.8percentofchildrenfromsuchmarriagesspoke bothlanguages.Urbanizationisanotherfactorcausinglanguageshift.Manyyoungpeoplebornin urbanareashaveonlyapassiveknowledgeoftheirethniclanguage. RESEARCHONBILINGUALISMANDBILINGUALEDUCATION ResearchonbilingualismandbilingualeducationwasnotanimportantpartoftheBelgiantradition. MauriceVanOverbeke1972bibliographyisindicativeofthattrend.InhisprefacetoAlbert Verdoodt'sbibliographyofBelgium'slinguisticproblems(1973),PierreDeBiereportshowrare theacademicapproachisandhowdifficultanobjectiveexaminationoflinguisticproblemsisin Belgium. TherewasmuchdiscussionoverlanguagequestionsintheBelgianCongo.Nevertheless,aswasthe caseinBelgium,theterm"bilingualism"wasrarelymentioned.Besidesaterminologicalor definitionalproblem,itwasalsoanepistemologicalone.OneofthefewtitlesisF.Seaus'Het problemvanhetbilinguismeinBelgischeKongo(cf.Verbeke,1966:107). AttheformerLovaniumUniversityinKinshasa,unrelatedresearcheffortsinbilingualismand bilingualeducationwereundertaken.First,researchwasbegunattheFacultyInstituteof PsychologyandPedagogywhere,underR.Verbeke,psychometricstudieswereconductedto examinetheimpactofbilingualismonstudents'intelligenceandachievementsincethe1960s. Second,ProfessorW.BalattheFacultyofPhilosophyandLetterswasthepioneerinstudiesand researchonlanguageinterferences,contrastivestudies,andstudiesonvarietiesofFrench.Afterhis retirement,theseeffortscontinued,particularlywiththelaunchingofasociolinguisticscourseand thecreationoftheCentredeLinguistiqueThoriqueetApplique(CELTA).TodayCELTAisthe majorinstitutioninresearchonbilingualismandbilingualeducationinZaire.Unfortunately,these effortshaveremainedscatteredwithoutcoordinationbetweenthetwoschools.Themainproblem remainingisthattheDepartmentofAfricanLinguisticsattheFacultyofLettershasnotyetplayed itsfullroleofleadingefforts 573

inbilingualismandbilingualeducation.Thefocusinthisdepartmentisstillon"descriptivism,"not onappliedlinguistics,particularlyAfricanlanguageteaching. INFORMATIONSOURCES Becauseofthepoliticaleconomyofpublishingandthesophisticationoftheinformationsystem, resourcecentersformaterialsandreferencepublicationsonlanguagesandeducationinAfricain generalandinZaireinparticularareavailablethroughcomputerdatabasesinEuropeortheUnited States.AlthoughCELTAhaspublishedsomebibliographies,thesearesolimitedthattheywillnot beconsideredhere.OnlyBelgiumandFrance,wheresubstantialsourcesonZairearelocated,will beconsidered. Becauseofthelongcolonialhistory,untilsometimeagoBelgiumwastheheadquartersofany informationonZaire.Recentyears,however,havewitnessedadecreasebothininterestandbudget devotedtoZaireowingtocompetitionwithothercountries(France,theUnitedStates),aswellasa needtobalanceBelgium'scooperationwithotherAfricancountries.Themajorinformationsource centerwastheRoyalMuseumofCentralAfrica(MURAC)atTervurenwhichpublishedthe BibliographieEthnographiquewithlinguistic,sociolinguistic,education,andteachingsections, alongwiththeAnnales,publishingarticlesormonographsfromtheDepartmentofLinguisticsof theMuseum.TheMuseumpublicationbudgetsarebeingcutdramatically. TheCentred'EtudeetdeDocumentationd'Afrique(CEDAF)inBrussels,ofrecentcreation,is probablyoneoftheleadingresourceinformationcentersonAfricaandmainlyonZaire.Indexes, bibliographies,andresourcesinmanyareassuchaseducationarefound.Mostoftheirmaterials covertheperiodsince1959. InFrance,withalltheimportancegiventoculturalinvestments,theCentreNationaldela RechercheScientifique(CNRS)andtheCentredeDocumentationenSciencesHumaines(CDSH) appeartobethetwomajorresourceinformationcenterswithspecialsectionsandissuesdevotedto Africa.TheyaresponsoredbytheAssociationdesUniversitsPartiellement/EntirementdeLangue Franaise(AUPELF),theagencyoftheFrancophonedealingwithinteruniversityaffairs,andthe AgencedeCooprationCulturelleetTechnique(ACCT),anintergovernmentalFrancophonebody. Onbehalfofthesebodies,theAssociationd'EtudesLinguistiquesInterculturellesAfricaines (AELIA)andtheCentreInternationaldeRechercheetd'EtudeenLinguistiqueFondamentaleet Applique(CIRELFA)publishreferenceandresourceinformationofvitalimportance,and directoriesofmicrofiches,microfilms,indexes,abstracts,andbibliographies.Amongothersections, oneonsciencesdel'ducationandanotheronsciencesdulangageareavailable.TheConseil InternationaldelaLangueFranaise(CILF)isanotherinstitutionpublishinginventoriesofAfrican languagestudies. BothinBelgiumandFrance,dissertationindexesandabstractsarenonexistent. 574

NOTES 1. ThecountrynowcalledZairewillbereferredtointhischapteras(a)CentralAfricaforthe precolonialperiod,(b)CongoFreeStateforKingLeopoldIl'sera(18851908),(c)Belgian CongofortheperiodoftheBelgiancolonization(19081960),and(d)CongoorZairefor theperiodfrom1960tothepresent. 2. ThissectiondrawsheavilyfromBarbaraA.Yates(1980). BIBLIOGRAPHY AbdulazizM.HMkilifi.1978."TriglossiaandSwahiliEnglishBilingualisminTanzania."In AdvancesintheStudyofSocietalMultilingualism,ed.J.F.Fishman.TheHague:Mouton,pp. 12952. AfricaSouthoftheSahara:19801981.1980.London:EuropaPublications. BokambaGEyamba.1976."AuthenticityandtheChoiceofaNationalLanguage:TheCaseof Zare."PrsenceAfricaine,Nos.99/100,pp.10443. .1977."TheImpactofMultilingualismonLanguageStructures:TheCaseofCentral Africa."AnthropologicalLinguistics19,5:181203. BrannConradM.B.1982."FrenchLexicographyinAfrica:AThreeDimensionalProject." JournalofModernAfricanStudies20,2:35359. BruhnTheaC.1984.Zaire:CountryStatusReport.Language/AreaReferenceCenter,Centerfor AppliedLinguistics,Washington,D.C. CamTranHong,andLeMoniqueBoul.1976a.UneEnqutesurlePlurilinguismeauZare. CentredeLinguistiqueThoriqueetApplique.Lubumbashi(Zare). .1976b.LeBilinguismeScolaireauZare.CentredeLinguistiqueThoriqueetApplique. Lumbashi(Zaire). ColemanJamesS.,andNdolambNgonkwey.1983."Zaire:TheStateandtheUniversity."In PoliticsandEducation:CasesfromElevenNations,ed.R.MurrayThomas.Oxford:Pergamon Press,pp.15578. DalbyDavid.1980."AfricanLanguages."InAfricaSouthoftheSahara,198081.London: EuropaPublications. EllingtonJohn.1973."WhatIsAuthentic?"AfricaReport(JulyAugust):2022. FabianJ.1986.LanguageandColonialPower.Cambridge:Cambridge:UniversityPress. FakSully.1979."LeFranaisauZare."InLeFranaishorsdeFrance,ed.AlbertVaidman. Paris:HonorChampion,pp.44172. FakSully,etal.1977.LeZare:DeuximePaysFrancophoneduMonde?Quebec:International

CenterforResearchonBilingualism. FasoldRalph.1984.TheSociolinguisticsofSociety.NewYork:BasilBlackwell,Inc. FehderauHaroldW.1966."TheOriginandDevelopmentofKituba(LinguaFrancaKikongo)." Ph.D.diss.,CornellUniversity. FeltzGaetan.1980."UnEchecdel'ImplantationScolaireenMilieuRural."CanadianJournalof AfricanStudies13,3:44159. FetterBruce.1983.ColonialRuleandRegionalImbalanceinCentralAfrica.Boulder,Colo.: WestviewPress,1983. GeorgeBetty.1966.EducationalDevelopmentintheCongo(Leopoldville).Washington,D.C.: U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice. 575

GrosjeanFranois.1982.LifewithTwoLanguages:AnIntroductiontoBilingualism.Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress. HaugenEiner,J.DerrickMcClure,andDerrickThomson,eds.1981.MinorityLanguagesToday. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,1981. HouisMaurice.1962."AperuSociologiquesurleBilinguismeenAfriqueNoire."Notes Africaines(Dakar,Senegal),no.96,pp.10713. KachruBrajB.1982."Bilingualism."InAnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,1980,ed.Robert B.Kaplan.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. KaplanIrving.1979.Zaire:ACountryStudy.Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrinting Office. KazadiNtole.1981."LaLinguistiqueAfricaineFacesaNouvelleSituation."Bulletinde l'AELIA(Paris),No.4(March),pp.5963. KimputuB.1978."LaSituationSociolinguistiqueKinshasa."Doctoralthesis,Universityof Provence(AixMarseilleI),France. MarcellesiJeanBaptiste.1981."Bilinguisme,Diglossie,Hgmonie:ProblmesetTches." Languages15,6(March):511. MorrisonDonaldGeorge,etal.,eds.1972.BlackAfrica:AComparativeHandbook.NewYork: FreePress. MutomboMHuta.1984."PourouContrel'UnicitLinguistiqueauZaire."AnalysesSociales1, 4(JulyAugust):2747. NdomaUngina.1977."SomeAspectsofPlanningLanguagePolicyinEducationintheBelgian Congo,19061960."Ph.D.diss.,NorthwesternUniversity. .1984."NationalLanguagePolicyinEducationinZaire."LanguageProblemsand LanguagePlanning8,2(Summer):17284. NyembweTNtita.1980."LeFranaisetlesLanguesNationalesauZare,Problmatiqued'une ApprocheSociolinguistique."Thse,UniversitCatholiquedeLouvain,LouvainlaNeuve (Belgium). PolomEdgar.1968."TheChoiceofOfficialLanguageintheDemocraticRepublicofthe Congo."InLanguageProblemsofDevelopingNations,ed.J.A.Fishman.NewYork:Wiley. PopulationReferenceBureau,Inc.1984.1984WorldPopulationDataSheet.Washington,D.C. ShowBryantP.1984."ForcePublique,ForceUnique:TheMilitaryintheBelgianCongo,1914 1939."Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofWisconsin,Madison. TashdjanAlain.1981."LesLanguesNationalesetl'EnseignementPrimaireauZare:Une

RformeetsesDifficults.Ed.JeanPierreCaprile.Bulletindel'AELIA(Paris),No.4(March): 5157. U.S.DepartmentofState,BureauofPublicAffairs.1981.BackgroundNotes:Zaire.Washington, D.C. VanMauriceOverbeke.1972.IntroductionauProblmeduBilinguisme.Bruxelles:Editions Labor. VansinaJan.1963."LongDistanceTradeRoutesinCentralAfrica."JournalofAfricanHistory 3,3:37590. VerdoodtAlbert.1973.ProblmesLinguistiquesBelges:IntroductionlaBibliographieet GuidepourlaRecherche.Louvain,Belgium:CentredeRechercheSociologique,Institutde Linguistique. VerebekeRonald.1966."LanguesVhiculairesdel'EnseignementenAfrique Noire:ProblmatiqueduChoixetImplicationsPdagogiques." 576

ProblmatiqueduChoixetImplicationsPdagogiques."PrsenceAfricaine,No.60:10116. YatesBarbaraA.1980."TheOriginsofLanguagePolicyinZaire."JournalofModernAfrican Studies18,2:25779. 577

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 578

GLOSSARY Arabization: thespreadof Arabculture, languageand religion. bidialectalism: theabilityto speaktwo distinct dialects,such asBlack Englishand standard English. bilingualism: theabilityto speaktwo different languages. cholofication: theprocessby whichSouth Americansof Indian background assimilateinto thedominant Hispanic culture. code:ageneral termwhich refersto language, dialector stylistic varieties. codification: standardizing the orthography andsystemof writing. codemixing:a formofspeech inwhichthe speakerwill mixtwocodes

withinthe sameutterance. code switching:a processof changingor switchingfrom onevarietyof languageor dialectto another. contact language:a languageused foreveryday contacts betweenpeople ofdifferent language backgrounds;a linguafranca. continuum:the termrefersto thelinguistic characteristic thatthereisno sharpor distinctbreak betweenthe standard(high form,acrolect) andthenon standard(low form,basilect) varietiesofa creole.Rather, thereisa gradualor continuous progression (mesolect) frombasilectto acrolect. creole:apidgin thathas acquirednative speakers. diglossia:the coexistenceof

twodialectsin functional distribution; onealiterary prestige version,like classical Arabicanda spokenversion, likecolloquial Arabic. exogamy: marrying outsideone's ownethnic group,clanor othersocial unit. heteroglossist: someonewho studiesother languages. ikastolas: Basque schools. 579

interlanguage: theversionofa languagespoken byasecond languagelearner beforehehas masteredit. Interlanguageis hencemarked byerrors. koinedialect:a linguafranca whichdevelops outofamixture ofseveral languages. languagedeath: the disappearance ofalanguage. languageshift: the abandonment, byagroup,of 580 onelanguage andtheadoption ofanother;e.g., immigrantsto theUnited States. lexicon:allthe wordsina language. linguafranca: "languageofthe franks"; originally,a mixedlanguage usedfortrade andcrusadesin the Mediterranean. Itisnowused generallyto meancontact language. linklanguage: linguafranca.

mesolect:see continuum. metalanguage: languageusedto describeor discussa language. microlect:a subsetofa dialect. morpheme:the smallest meaningfulunit ofspeech;it maybeaword orapartofa word(unfriend ly). morphology:the studyofthe smallest meaningful unitsof languageandof theirformation intowords. mothertongue: nativelanguage. multilingualism: theabilityto speakseveral different languages;the existenceof several languages withinanation. patois:a regionaldialect, butusuallyused inthesenseof anilliterateor nonstandard variety. phoneme:the smallest significantunit ofsoundina particular

language. phonology:the studyofthe soundsystemof alanguage. pidgin:acontact languagewhich developsoutof amixtureof several languages.A pidginhasno nativespeakers. reduplication:a morphological processinwhich thereisa repetitionof partoftheword. semilingualism: acontroversial termforthe claimthat bilingual speakersmay notbefully proficientin eitherlanguage. Thisclaimis undocumented. speechrevival: therevivalofa deadlanguage, suchasHebrew. standardization: aprocessof language planningby whichoneor moredialectsof alanguageare turnedintoa standard languagewith generally acceptedword choice,spelling andgrammar. standard

language:that dialectofa languagewhich hasliteraryand culturalprestige, appearsin grammarsand dictionaries,and isacceptedby itsspeakersto betheproper variety. suffix:a formativeadded totheendofa wordtomodify itsmeaningor toformanew derivative(dog s,working). taalstryd: Afrikaansfor languagebattle, i.e.thefightfor Afrikaansasa standardofficial language. vernacular:daily speechas distinguished fromliterary standard.

ChristinaBrattPaulston BIBLIOGRAPHICALESSAY Bilingualeducationgoesbackalmostasfarashistoricalrecords.Before2000B.C.thereisevidence ofimportantbilingualschoolsinwhichthenativeAkkadianandthetraditionalSumerianwere taught.TheprophetDaniel,selectedforascribaleducationbyNebuchadnessar,wastaughtto communicateinlanguagesotherthanhisnativeHebrew.RomanchildrenstudiedunderGreek tutors,andinfluencesofLatinandGreekremaintoourownday.GlynLewispursuestheseissuesin "BilingualismandBilingualEducationTheAncientWorldtotheRenaissance"(1977),andavery interestingaccountitis.Thearticlecontainsnumerousreferencestohistoricalstudies.HeinzKloss exploresthehistoryofbilingualismandbilingualeducationspecificallyintheUnitedStatesinThe AmericanTradition(1977).AstheauthorcommentsinthePreface,thecontentwillseemstrange eventotheAmericanreader.Historicalfactdoesnotalwayscorrespondtothemythofthemelting pot. Morerecentdevelopmentsontheinternationalsceneareexploredinanumberofsources.Agood placetostartiswithB.SpolskyandR.L.CooperfifteenCaseStudiesinBilingualEducation (1978)fromaroundtheworld.FromthesameyearwealsohaveaspecialissueoftheInternational ReviewofEducationon"LanguageofInstructioninaMultiCulturalsetting"(24:3).Therearea numberofProceedingsfromconferencesoninternationalbilingualeducation:R.TroikeandN. Modiano,eds.,ProceedingsoftheFirstInterAmericanConferenceonBilingualEducation(1975); J.E.Alatis,ed.,InternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation(1978);andT.HusnandS. Opper,eds.,MulticulturalandMultilingualEducationinImmigrantCountries(1983),whichall spanawiderangeofcasesandissues.TworecentworksareB.Spolskyed.,Languageand EducationinMultilingualSettings(1986),whichdealsmostlywiththeoreticalissues,andS. Churchill,TheEducationofLinguisticandCulturalMinoritiesintheOECDCountries 581

turalMinoritiesintheOECDCountries(1986)whichconsiderstheEuropeansituation. Oneworkwhichconsidersthevernacular,thatis,anonstandardlanguageinbilingualeducation,is B.Hartford,A.Valdman,andC.R.Foster,eds.(1982)inIssuesinInternationalBilingual Education:TheRoleoftheVernacular.IssueslikethoseraisedinthechapteronJamaicasurface, buttherearealsopsychologicalperspectives,concernswithlinguisticdescription,butparticularly neoMarxistviewsoncurriculumandteachertraining,andotherconflictualviewpoints.Theneo Marxistperspective,whilelongcommoninEurope,isafairlyrecentnotioninthestudyofbilingual educationintheUnitedStates.Marxismsawconflictofinterestonlyintermsofsocioeconomic class,whileneoMarxismaddstheconceptofethnicgroupsandprovidesaviablealternative analysisandinterpretationofthephenomenonofbilingualeducation. ForthereaderwhoisinterestedinbilingualismandbilingualeducationintheUnitedStates,there areanumberofsources.ThebestisprobablyC.FergusonandS.HeathLanguageintheUSA (1981)whichinteraliadiscussesAmericanEnglish,languagesbeforeandafterEnglish,thatis, Amerindianandimmigrantlanguagesandlanguageineducation.AlsousefulistheCenterfor AppliedLinguistics'fivevolumeseriesonBilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives(1977): Volume1,SocialScience;Volume2,Linguistics;Volume3,Law;Volume4,Education;and Volume5,Synthesis. OneaspectofbilingualismthatisnotcoveredinthepresentvolumeisthespreadofEnglishasa languageofwidercommunicationintheworld.TodaytherearemorenonnativespeakersofEnglish thantherearenative,andJ.A.Fishman,R.Cooper,andA.Conrad,eds.documentsthis phenomenoninTheSpreadofEnglish(1977). Finally,thephenomenonofbilingualismcanbestudiedfromseveralperspectives.M.AlbertandL. OblerconsideritfromaviewpointofneurolinguisticsintheirTheBilingualBrain(1978).F. Grosjeantakesamoresocialapproachinconsideringwhatitisliketogrowupwithtwolanguages inhisLifewithTwoLanguages:AnIntroductiontoBilingualism(1982).W.E.Lambertconsiders bilingualismfromtheperspectiveofpsychologyinLanguage,Psychology,andCulture(1972),a collectionofhisclassicwork.AlsowellknownisJamesCummins'"TheInfluenceofBilingualism onCognitiveGrowth"(1976). Thereisalsotheworkinanthropology,thewellknownSapirWhorfhypothesiswhichholdsthat thestructureofthelanguageonespeaksinfluencesthewayoneperceivestheworld.Althoughthis isanattractiveideatononlinguists,mostlinguistsremainskeptical,butletthereadersthemselves exploreWhorfLanguage,Thought,andReality(1956). 582

BIBLIOGRAPHY AlatisJ.E.,ed.1978.InternationalDimensionsofBilingualEducation.Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniversityPress. AlbertM.,andL.Obler.1978.TheBilingualBrain.NewYork:AcademicPress. CenterforAppliedLinguistics.1977.BilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives.Vol.1,Social Science.Arlington,Va. .1977.BilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives.Vol.2,Linguistics.Arlington,Va. .1977.BilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives.Vol.3,Law.Arlington,Va. .1977.BilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives.Vol.4,Education.Arlington,Va. .1977.BilingualEducation:CurrentPerspectives.Vol.5,Synthesis.Arlington,Va. ChurchillS.1986.TheEducationofLinguisticandCulturalMinoritiesintheOECDCountries. SanDiego:CollegeHillPress. CooperR.L.,ed.1982."AFrameworkfortheStudyofLanguageSpread."LanguageSpread: StudiesinDiffusionandSocialChange.Arlington,Va.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics,and Bloomington,Ind.:IndianaUniversityPress. CumminsJ.1976."TheInfluenceofBilingualismonCognitiveGrowth:ASynthesisof ResearchFindingsandExplanatoryHypothesis."WorkingPapersonBilingualism,No.9:143. Olse:UniversityofToronto. FergusonC.,andS.Heath,eds.1981.LanguageintheUSA.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. FishmanJ.A.,R.Cooper,andA.Conrad,eds.1977.TheSpreadofEnglish.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. GrosjeanF.1982.LifewithTwoLanguages:AnIntroductiontoBilingualism.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress. HartfordB.,A.Valdman,andC.R.Foster,eds.1982.IssuesinInternationalBilingual Education:TheRoleoftheVernacular.NewYork:PlenumPress. 583

HusnT.,andS.Opper,eds.1983.MulticulturalandMultilingualEducationinImmigrant Countries.Oxford:PergamonPress. KlossH.1977.TheAmericanTradition.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. LambertW.E.1972.Language,Psychology,andCulture.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversity Press. LewisGlyn.1977."BilingualismandBilingualEducation."InFrontiersinBilingualEducation, eds.B.SpolskyandR.Cooper.Rowley,Mass.:NewburyHouse. SpolskyB.,ed.1986.LanguageandEducationinMultilingualSettings.Clevedon:Multilingual MattersLtd. SpolskyB.,andR.Cooper,eds.1978.CaseStudiesinBilingualEducation.Rowley,Mass.: NewburyHouse. TroikeR.,andN.Modiano.1975.ProceedingsoftheFirstInterAmericanConferenceon BilingualEducation.WashingtonD.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics. WhorfB.L.1956.Language,Thought,andReality.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. 584

AUTHORINDEX Abdulaziz,M.,210,215,21819 Abdulloeva,M.,438 AbdulRahman,A.,5051,56 AbouSeida,A.,49,57 Abrahams,R.,307 Afolayan,A.,220,35657 AhadHa'am,279 Alba,V.,11 Albert,M.,6 Alb,X.,89,95,99 Alexiev,A.,431 Allal,L.K.,529 Allwood,J.,497,506 Ambert,A.N.,550 Andersson,A.B.,499,5045 Andr,P.,514,531 Andronov,M.S.,256 Anghelescu,N.,55 AngogoKanyoro,R.,218 Anis,I.,56 Anisfeld,E.,168 Anliker,R.,524 Ansre,G.,220 Anthias,F.,233 Apte,M.L.,247,252539,260 AranadeSwadesh,E.,314 Aranda,E.,387 Arias,M.B.,552 Armstrong,C.A.,67 Arnberg,L.,500 Arnon,A.,290 Arnstberg,KO.,47576 Aronsson,K.,504 Ashley,M.J.,421 Asrori,V.,434,438 Azaryahu,J.,27980,28487,290 Bachi,R.,276,281,289 Badawi,ElSaid,5253,58 Baeten,R.,78 BaetensBeardsmore,H.,66 Bailey,B.,3012 Bailey,CJ.N.,254 Baina,A.,334 Baker,K.,551,55354 Balln,E.,385 Balsa,C.M.,78 Bannert,R.,5056 BarAdon,A.,282 Barth,F.,4,9

Barton,H.D.,214,217 Baskakov,43233 Bastenier,A.,77 Bauman,J.J.,3 Baumgartner,H.,529 Beaujot,R.,142,143

585

Bell,T.H.,541, 552 BenAviv,I., 284 Benderson,A., 546,556 Bendix,E.H., 256 Benedict,P.K., 25 Benitez,R., 365 BenMoshe,Y., 286 Bennet,L.,301 Bennett,J.W., 7 Bentahila,A., 33234,336 38,340 Benyakhlef,M., 339 BenYehuda,E., 278,280,283 586 Berkman,Y., 289 BernerHrbin, A.,532 Bernhard,R., 531 Bersten,M., 260 Bertonio,L., 101 Besemeres,J. F.,435 Bianconi,S., 528,532 Bickerton,D., 254,298 Bidwell,R., 33233 Billigmeier,R. H.,514,532 Binnemans,C L,73 Birashk,A., 440

Bird,C.,24 Blondel,A.M., 331 Bloom,L.M., 173 Bloomfield,L., 329 Bodinier,CP., 531 Boelen, S.S.H.M.,66 Boitsova,A.F., 436 Bokamba,E. D.,220,564 65,568,570 Bonilla,H.,383 Bonilla Castillo,F., 315,319,321 22 Boon,H.,70 Borel,D.,530 Bourhis,R.Y., 279 Bouysse Cassagne,T., 87 Bowd,A.D., 152 Boyd,S.,483 Brand,J.,117 Branford,J., 413 Brann,C.M. B.,570 Brassine,J.,75 76 Briggs,L.T., 97,387 Bright,W.,260 Brod,R.I.,556 Brooks,I.R., 152 Brown,G.H., 541,542 Bruck,M.,178 Brudner,L.,5 Bruhn,T.C.,

564 Buchmann,W., 518 Budmar,S.J., 506 Bughwan,D., 419 Bujra,J.,206 Burckhart,W., 531 Burga,M.,383 Burger,M.,531 Burnaby,B., 14243,145 47,149,151 54,156 Burns,D.,387 Burt,M.,173 Bustamante,H., 64 Cabrera,M.A., 324 Calzavarini,L. G.,88 Cam,T.H.,565 66,569 Campbell,H., 309 Campbell,L., 3031 Canese,K.de, 370 Cardazo,E., 364 Carpenter,F., 436 Carrre d'Encausse,435 Cassano,P.V., 374 Cassidy,F., 298,302 Cathomas,B., 531 Cave,W.,436 Cazden,C., 439,443,554 Cerrn Palomino,R.,

382,384,387 Chadwick,N., 109,113,116 Chandirli,S. M.,442 Chang,K.,196 Charpilloz,A., 514,525,531 ChaseSardi, M.,36062 Chatterji,S.K., 255 Chaturvedi,M. G.,254,263 ChavezBernal, J.P.,324 Chiang,G.K., 199,,200 Chiew,SK., 393 Chick,K.,425 Chirif,A.,386 Chishimba,M. M.,220 Chomsky,W., 290 Christophersen, P.,329 Clarke,E.,300

Clarke,S.,153 587 Clayes,R.,66 Cleghorn,A., 181 Clodman,J., 152 Clough,S.B., 67 Cneudt,R.de, 72 Codas,C.,373 Cohen,A.D., 443 Cohen,G.,65 Cohen,M.,20, 34 Coleman,J.S., 56869 Combrink, J.G.H.,41011 Conklin,N.F., 539,54143 Conrad,A.,3 Conrad,A.W., 544 Constantinides, P.,233 Cook,R.,165 Cooper,R.L., 3,544 Corcoran, J.X.W.P.,109 CorreaZoli, Y.,543,556 Corvlan,G., 367,370,372 74 Cotler,J.,380, 383 Cottam,R.W., 10 Counson,A., 70 Craig,D.,303, 3057,309 Criper,C.,204, 213,216 Crisp,S.,232

Cummins,J., 155,165,497 Cunliffe,B., 109,117 Cziko,G.A., 175 Dahlbck,H., 506 Dalby,D.,565 Dallas,R.,298 Dalto,G.,4 Dandler,J.,103 D'Anglejan,A., 168 DasGupta,J., 258,261 Dassetto,F.,77 Daumont,F., 65 Davies,E.E., 337 Dawes,T.R., 71 Day,E.,177 Day,R.R.,168 DeCamp,D., 254,302 Decorsiere,F., 331 DeCroly,O., 73 DeGranda,G., 36869,371 74 Dejean,C.,74 DeKanter,A. A.,551,553 54 DeLange,P., 417,422 Demelas,M. D.,102 Denevan,W. M.,86 DeSilva, M.W.S.,261 Destree,J.,66 Deutsch,K.W., 7,276

Dhondt,J.,65 Diebold,A.R., 329 Dillon,M.,116 Dimock,E.C., 260 Dodoboev,R., 438 Dominguez,R., 373 Dorian,N.,3, 126 Dornic,S.,504 Douhan,B.,8 Draye,H.,65 Dressler,W.,3 Driver,H.E., 29 DuBois,P., 53132 Dugantsy,M., 505 Dulay,H.,173 Dunn,C.M., 134 Durkacz,V.E., 125 Dutcher,N., 388 Dzhafarzoda, A.M.,437 Edberg,L.,494 Edwards,B., 29899 Edwards,J., 282 Egerod,S.,186 Ehn,B.,475 76 Ehret,C.,205 Eid,M.,48 Ekberg,J.,485 Ekstrand,L. H.,497 Ekstrm,L., 491,493 Elazar,D.,7 Elias,H.J.,67 Ellington,J.,

564,569,572 Ellis,P.B.,110, 122 Elson,N.,149, 15152,154 Emeneau,M. B.,255,256 Engle,P.L., 388 Enstrm,I., 49394 Epstein,I.,529 Ericsson,E., 5023

Escobar,A., 38283,388 Esterhuyse, J.,421 Fabian,J., 564 Faik,S.,565 Fairbank,J. K.,18792 Farris,N.M., 313 Fasold,R., 307,571 Fehderau,H. W.,563 Feinsod Sokenick,H., 288 Fellman,J., 282,290 Fennell,D., 11920,127 28 Ferguson,C. 588 A.,5254, 58,260,336, 371,544,546 Fetter,B.,562 63 Filip,J.,109 Fillenbaum, S.,168 Fischer,H., 524 Fishman,J. A.,3,7,54, 215,258,279, 309,351,355, 373,405,539, 544,556 Fitzgerald,C. P.,18789 Flores Galindo,A., 383 Foster,G.M., 313 Foster,M.K.,

143 Francis,J.,69 Friedman, M.,7 Fries,C.C., 260 Fromkin,V., 20,43 Furer,J.J., 514,531 Gal,S.,8 Galin,P.,380 Garcia,S.O., 541,545 Gardell,I., 499 Gading,E., 505 Gardner,R. C.,168 Garvin,P.L., 260,374 Gellner,E., 332 Gendron,J. D.,167 Genesee,F., 17679,181 George,B. 56869 Geyl,P.,67 68 Gibb,H.A.R., 432 Gibson,C., 313 Gilbert,G. G.,542,556 Gillouin,R., 73 Glazer,N.,7 Gleason,H. A.,20 Glick,R., 204,213,216 Goel,B.S., 263 Goh,Keng Swee,398

99 Gonzlez,G., 318 Gopinathan, S.,395,398 Gorman,T. P.,211 Govaert,S., 76 Grazovsky, Y.,285 Greaves,T., 99 Green,D., 282 Greenberg,J. H.,26,203, 205,208 Greene,D., 121,122 Greyerz,O. von,527,529 Grimm Gobat,G., 514,525,531 Grosjean,F., 6,564 Guan,D.G., 190 Guicciardini, L.,67,70 Gumperz,J. J.,54,251, 253,25657, 260 Gupta,R.S., 259,264 Guthrie,M., 204 Haas,M.,29 Haas,W.,526 27 Hadacek,C., 531 Hagelin,K., 494 Hakansson, G.,506 Hammar,T.,

477,48788, 492 Hammarberg, B.,493,505 6 Hancock,I. F.,37 Hanse,J.,65 Hansegard, N.E.,495 96 Hanson,G., 502 Haramati,S., 282,288 Hardman,M. J.,98,387 Hashimoto, M.J.,192 Haugen,E., 69,214,258, 27677,279 Haviv,D., 287 Hawthorn,H. B.,147 Heath,S.B., 1,313,382, 539,544,546 Hechter,M., 117 Heese,H., 412 Hegnauer,C., 531 Heine,B., 2045,214 16 Henrici,A., 204 Henriques,F., 300 Henzl,V.M., 543

Herman,S.R., 589 279 Hermans,M., 77 Hernandez Chavez,E., 179,555 Herreros,B.U. de,373 Heyd,U.,279 Heye,J.B., 531 Heyneman,S., 213 Hill,C.P.,215 Hinnebusch,T. J.,204,207 Hock,H.H., 256 Hodgson,R. C.,168 Hoffman,B. G.,332 Holm,W.,155 Holmegaard, M.,494 Holobow,N., 175 Hood,L.M., 173 Hornby,P.,6 Hovav,H.,284 Howard,P.G., 14546 Huacani,C., 102 Hyltenstam, K.,496,5046 Ikara,B.,346 Insfran,P.M., 372 Jaakola,M., 476,48182 Jaberg,K.,531 Jacobsen,W. H.,31 Jacobson,L., 496

James,C.,282 Jermudd,B. H.,258 Jobin,J.F., 529 Johansson,F. A.,505 Johansson,H., 478,481 Johnson,L., 301 Johnston,M. E.,4 Jones,P.R., 230 Juste,T.,70 Kachru,B.B., 247,264 Kainz,F.,514, 528 Kllstrm,R., 49091,493 Kalra,A.,260 Kamath,V.B., 259 Kaplan,I., 564,572 Kapoor,J.M., 263 Karakulakov, V.V.,440 Kashoki,M. E.,214 Kaufman,T., 34,314 Keech,W.R., 521,531 Keller,G.D., 556 Kerr,H.H., 526,531 Khleif,B.B., 122,12931 Khubchandani, L.M.,247, 249,25253 Khudoidodov, 438,440 Kimhi,D.,

286,290 Kimputu,B., 56566,572, 573 Kirkness,V., 156 Kissen,I.A., 436 Kitching,C.J., 417 Kjolseth,R., 553 Klausner,J., 288 Kliueva,V.N., 436 Kloss,H.,528, 539,541,547, 549 Knecht,P.,531 Kochman,T., 307 Kohn,H.,7,10 12,520,531 Kolasky,J., 433 Kolde,G.,516, 51819,522 23,525,531 Koller,W.,531 Kostianovsky, O.M.de,364 Kotsinas,U. B.,506 Kratochvil,P., 188 Kreins,Y.,75 76 Kressel,G., 288 Krishnamurti, B.H.,260, 261,262 Kroes,H.,420 Khn,P.,516 Kuiper,F.B.J., 256 Kuo,C.Y., 392,399,402

Kuper,A.,300 Kuplowska,O., 165 Kurth,G.,65 Kushnir,M., 289 Labov,W., 307,544 Ladefoged,P., 204,213,216 Lainio,J.,505 Lakhdar,G. A.,339 Lam,L.,152 Lambert,W., 6,16869,175, 17778,341, 553,555 Lanham,L. W.,4089,413 Lanphier,M. C.,152 Lapkin,S., 157,177

Laprade,R., 382 Lasonen,K., 502 Leap,W.L., 543 LeBoul,M., 56566,569 Lebow,R.N., 117 Lecerf,J., 336,339 Lee,Kuan Yew,396,400 Leenen,J.,66 Lehmann,W. P.,186,195 98 Leibowitz,A. H.,548 Lenin,V.I., 435 LePage,R. B.,254,299, 590 302 Levin Epshtein,A. Z.,287 Levy,S.B.,5 Lewis,E.G., 115,123,131, 406,425, 432,434,437 Li,C.N.,27 Lieberson,S., 4 Lightbown, P.,173 Liljegren,T., 501 Liubana,B. S.,440 Lockwood, W.B.,125 Lfgren,H., 5013 Loman,B., 496

Long,E.,298 99 Lopez,G., 324 Lopez,L.E., 387 Ltscher,A., 530 Lourie,M. A.,539,541 43 Ldi,G.,531 Lueders Salmon,E., 309 Lugon,C., 531 Lurati,O., 532 Ma,Y.,186 87,19091, 19496 Maandi,K., 505 Maca Ghobhainn, S.,122 McCormack, W.,260 McCormick, K.,412,419 MacDowell, M.,497 McEvedy,C., 110 MacKenzie, M.,153 MacKinnon, K.,13233 MacLennon, H.,169 Macnamara, J.,54,118, 124,126,128, 173,277,282 McRae,R. D.,531 McWilliams, C.,548

Maeroff,G. I.,545 Magiste,E., 504 Magnusson, E.,506 Malherbe,E. G.,406,417, 42021 Mani,A.,398 Manley,M., 300 Mannheim, B.,2 Marais,W., 336,339 Marcellesi,J. B.,565 Marckwardt, A.H.,544 Martin,F.X., 112 Mathiot,M., 374 Mathmudova, S.M.,436, 438 Mazrui,A., 213 Medlin,W. K.,436 Meillet,A., 20,34,66 67 Meisaari Polsa,T.,493 Melendez,S. E.,552 Mela,B.,S. J.,37174 Melikoff,O., 170 Merelman,R. M.,441 Merkelbach, C.,522 Merkt,G., 530 Meskill,J.,

193 Meyer,K., 522,531 Miller,J.,406 Mithun,M., 3032 Mitra,A.,247 Mkilifi,A., 571 Moatassime, A.,33435, 339 Modiano,N., 155,324 Mohale,B. V.,263 Mhlig, W.J.G.,204 Mokhov,A., 436 Molnos,A., 206 Monteuil,V., 339 Montoya,M. V.,102,104 Moody,T.W., 112 Moore,A.J., 154 Moore,R., 229 Mora,C.,386 Moreno,F. R.,363 Mrikofer,J. C.,527 Morinigo,M. A.,37374 Morrison,D. G.,564 Mould,M., 204 Mukherjee, A.,255,261 Mller,H.P., 520,531

Mller,M.,530 Municio,I.,493 Murra,J.V.,87 Murtazoev,B.,435 MutomboHuta,M.,563,572 Nahir,M.,2,27577,286,290 NahmadSitton,S.,314 Naim,C.M.,251 Naucler,K.,499500 Navarro,R.,552 Nazarova,M.A.,441 Ndoma,U.,568,570 Neale,B.,206 Neiman,D.,284 Nelson,K.,173 Nrum,C.J.van,70 Nettleford,R.,300 Ngonkwey,N.,56869 Nichols,J.,149,154,543 Norris,K.,300 Nurse,D.,204,207 Oakley,R.,233 Obler,L.,6 O'Bryan,K.G.,165 OCinneide,M.S.,127 OCiosan,S.,118 OCuiv,B.,124,127 ODanachair,C.,127 ODomhnallain,T.,131 hman,S.,496 Oksaar,E.,496,505 Olyff,F.,65 Ombiaux,M.des,66 OuvinenBirgerstam,P.,497,501 Overbeke,M.van,64 Oxford,R.,541,543 Pandit,P.B.,247,251,25354,257 Panizzolo,P.,531 Parejas,A.,88 Parker,G.,386 Parkin,D.J.,214,21619 Parsons,N.J.,409 Patch,R.,2 Pattanayak,D.P.,247,263 Patterson,E.P.,147 Paulston,C.B.,252,277,491,503,539,541 Pe,W.,66 Pelli,M.,281 Peres,I.,278

Prez,E.,102 PrezMaricevich,G.,374 Philippson,G.,204,207 Philips,S.,152 Picard,L.,67 Pichard,A.,524 Pienemann,M.,497 Pierce,B.,547 Pierce,R.,434 Pike,K.L.,260 Pinnow,HJ.,25 Pirenne,H.,65,6768 Pirhi,J.,288 Pla,J.,36566 Planta,J.M.von,531 Platt,T.,87 Polich,E.,176 Polom,E.,204,2067,21417,568 Pool,J.,432 Pottier,B.,373 Poulsen,J.H.W.,122 PozziEscot,I.,388 Prewitt,K.,441 Py,B.,531 Raag,R.,48283,505 Rabin,C.,281,286 Radzhabova,T.M.,437 Randall,P.,421 Rashidov,S.,435 Ravnitsky,Y.,283 Reid,E.,235 Reinans,S.A.,477,487 Reischauer,E.O.,18792 Reitz,J.G.,165 Rex,J.,229 Ribeiro,D.,386 Richardson,B.,145,147 Ricker,J.,165 Riester,J.,99 Ris,R.,527,531 Rivarola,D.,374 Rivet,P.,101

591

RoaBastos,A., 372 Rodman,R.,20, 43 Roldn,J.,313, 317 Rona,J.P.,371, 37374 Rnmark,W., 482 Roosens,E.,78 Rosenthal,R., 496 Rosier,P.,155 RosRomero,M. C.,324 Rotberg,I.C., 554 Roy,P.,263 Royce,A.P.,8, 1011 Rubanza,Y., 217 Rubenshtain,F. 592 L.,440 Rubin,J.,277, 36768,371, 37374 Ruhlen,M.,20, 25,34 Ruiz,R.,542, 545,550 RuizVelasco, E.,315,319,321 22 Rundle,S.,66 Rusakova,B. M.,440 Sah,P.P.,262 Said,Z.,56 SaifullahKhan, V.,226 Saignes,T.,86 Saini,S.K.,263 St.John.,R., 275,282 Sanchez,R., 387

Sandval,G., 99 Sapir,E.,29 Sauvageot,A., 67 Saywell,J.,165 Schppi,P.,531 Schermerhorn, R.H.,1,4 Schiffman,H. F.,247 Schilling,R., 531 Schlpfer,R., 532 Schliessl,A., 531 Schmid,C., 523,531 Schmid,V.,524 Schwarzenbach, R.,52627,531 32 SchylBjurman, G.,498 Scotton,C.M., 20910,21419 Seaus,F.,573 Sedlack,P.,211 Segers,G.,72 Selinker,L., 304 Serrure,C.P., 70 Sevost'ianova, T.E.,440 Seybolt,P.J., 199,200 Shafer,B.C.,10 Shanmugam Pillai,M.,260 Shapiro,M.C., 247 Shapson,S.M., 177 Sherman,W.L., 313 Shopen,T.,24 Shorish,M.M.,

432,435 Shouby,E.,57 Shreedhar,M. V.,262 Shrofel,S.M., 152 Shukurov,M. R.,432 Silver,B.,443 Simenon,G.,69 Simon,W.B., 514,528 Singh,S.,254, 263 Singleton,J., 262 Sitta,H.,527, 531 Sjberg,A.F., 260 Skutnabb Kangas,T.,496 97,504 Slobin,D.I., 173 Sluys,A.,70 Smilanski,Z., 287 Smith,D.J., 229 Smith,M.,301, 499 Somogyi,A., 152 Sonderegger,S., 532 Southworth,F. C.,247,256, 260 Spalding,K., 383 Spitta,V.,56 57 Sridhar,S.N., 256 Srivastava,R. N.,247,249, 251,25354, 25962,264

Stalder,F.J., 530 Stankovski,M., 505 Stanley,M.H., 176 Stengers,J.65 Stern,H.H., 174,177 Stewart,W.,301 Stockfelt Hoatson,B.I., 498 Strmqvist,S., 497,506 Stross,B.,313 Stroud,C.,496 97 Suarez,J.,379, 382 Subirats,J.,102 3 Susnik,B.,361, 364 Svensson,G., 499

Swadesh,M., 314 Swain,M.157, 17677,181 Swing,E.S.,70 Tai,J.,197 Tanner,A.,147, 15556 Tappolet,E.,531 Tarzimanov,F. V.,436 Tashdjan,A., 570 Taylor,W.B., 313 Temmerman,H., 73 Terrell,T.D., 173 Tesnire,L.,66 67 Thilo,E.,531 Thomke,H., 530 593 Thompson,R. M.,11 Tikunoff,W., 554 Tingbjrn,G., 491,493,505 Toch,T.,552 Tojieva,B.,438 Toohey,K.,146, 149,15152, 154 Torero,A.,87, 95 Tosi,A.,232 Toukomaa,P., 497,5012 Toussaint,N.,72 73 Tovar,A.,374 Tovar,E.C.,324 Trier,U.P.,523 Troike,R.,552 Trudgill,P.,413 Tschanz,L.,145,

146 Tucker,R.,168 69,17778 TurSinai,N.H., 275,282 Ugarte Chamorro,M. A.,382 Ullman,L.,501 Ury,W.,219 Uspenskaia,L. V.,434,437 Vale,L.,422 Valitov,A.M., 435 Valkhoff,M.,65 Vanderkerckove, R.G.,70 VanOverbeke, M.,573 Vansiliette,M., 73 Vansina,J.,562 Varkoritskaia,L. A.,436 VazquezFaria, J.,554 Veltman,C.,542 43,546,556 Verdoodt,A., 64,78,573 Verheyen,J.E., 68,71,73 Verjans,P.,77 Verlooy,J.B. C.,68 Viberg,A,505 6 Viletta,R.,521, 531 Virta,E.,490 91,501,504 Voegelin,C.F., 20 Voegelin,F.M., 20 Voionmaa,K., 506 Volbrecht,T.,

421 Vouga,J.P.,531 Wachtel,N.,86 Waggoner,D., 540 WalkerGordon, G.310 Wall,M.,127 Walusimbi,L., 213,216 Wande,E.,481, 496,505 Wartburg,W. von,531 Wasserstrom,R., 313 Watson,J.L., 230 Weilenmann,H., 523 Weinberg,M., 548 Weinreich,U., 514,517,521 22,52829,531 Welti,M.C.de., 373 Wennerstrm, G.501 Wertenschlag, L.,530 Westin,C.,486 Wezemael,J. van,72 Whiteley,W.H., 204,2079,212, 214,216 Widgren,J.,476 Wigfors,E.,497 Wikstrm,J., 482 Wilding,J.,225 Willemsen,A. W.,67 Wilmars,D.,68 69 Wilson,D.,309 Wilson,R.251, 25657

Wilson,W.E., 393 Wimbush,S.E., 431 Wise,M.R., 386 Withers,C.W. J.,123 Wodak Leodolter,R.,3 Wolff,E.,315

Wong,S L.,541,543 Wood,R. E.,372 Wurm,S. A.,27 Yallop,C., 27 Yates,B. A.,568, 57071 Young, Douglas, 422 Yudelovitz, D.,283, 28586 Zaborski, A.,205 594 Zafrani,H., 331 Zartman,J. W.,334 Zentella,A. C.,540 Zhuravleya, A.,433 Zimmer,R., 527 Zimmerli, J.,531 Ziga,M., 387 Zuta,H., 278,285 86 Zwicky, M.,530

LANGUAGEINDEX Ache,360 Acholi,205,213 Afrikaans,9,40526 Akarimonjong/Ateso, 213,215 Akkadian,280 Algonquian,142 Arabic,56,9,47 59,190,278,32942, 34748,412 Arawak,297 Assamese,250,252 53 Aymara,85105,379 88 Ayoreo,360 Bantu,55972.See alsoindividual languages Basque(Euskera),449 73 Bengali,22829,250, 252,25455,25960 Berber,5051,58, 32942 Bhili,253 Bhojpuri,259 BlackEnglish,9,542 Breton,10910 Cantonese,23031, 392 Catalan,44973 Celtic,10936 Chaga,206 Chamacoco,360 Chattisgarhi,256 Chinese,185200, 391403,545 Ch'ol,324 Chulupi,360 Ciluba(Tshiluba),564 74 Coptic,5051,58 Cornish,110,116 Cree,15556 Czech,548 Dai,186

Dawoer,186 Dogri,253 Dutch,6380,408, 411,550 Embu,211 English,3,6,9,12,54, 78,118,14158,163 81,20322,22545, 24765,297310, 332,340,34558,391 403,40526,472, 529,53957 Ewenk,186 Fanakolo,408 Faroese,121 Flemish,3,6380, 564,574 French,3,12,54,63 80,14158,16381, 230,278,32942, 405,408,411, 595

449,463,469,472,51433,54243,550,56173 Gaelic,3,5 Gaelic,Irish,10910,11822,124,127 Gaelic,Scottish,10910,12324,126 Galician(Gallego),44973 GalloRomance,518 Gan,186 Gelao,186 German,64,75,78,278,405,408,411,419,472,51433,542,54749,550 Greek,50,233,408,419 Guarani,5,35975 Gujarati,206,225,22829,25052,256,258,408 Hadza,205 Haida,142 Hakka,186,230 Halbi,254,256 Hani,186 Hausa,348,350,352539,357 Haya(Kihaya),21718 Hebrew,2,6,9,165,27592,331,333 Hindi,22930,24765,408 Hindustani,252,260 Hittite,280 Hokkien,23031,392 Huave,324 Igbo,349,35253,357 Inuktitul,156 Iraqw,205 Irish.SeeGaelic,Irish Italian,54,225,23132,405,408,449,51433 JamaicanCreole,297310 Japanese,545 Jaqaru,386 Jopara,36869 Juang,254 JudeoSpanish(Ladino),278 Kachi(Kacchi),206,251 Kalenjin,211 Kamba,204,211 Kannada,24950,252,256,260 KarimonjongTurkana,205 Kashmiri,250,25253 Kawki,386 Khasi,259 Khoi(Khoin),4089,411 Kikongo,56272 Kikuyu,204,211,215 Kiluba,564 Kimvita,2079

Kipsigis,205 Kituba,564 Kiunguja,207,209 Konkani,206,251,25354 Kurax(Oraon),255 Kutenai,142 Lango,205 Latin,50,70,280,450,567 Latvian,227 Lengua,36162 Lingala,3,56474 Llapuni,92 Luganda,205,208,21213,215,217 Lugbara,205,213 Luo,205,211 Luyia(Luhya),204,206,211 Maasai,205,211 Madi,205 Maithili,259 Malay,231,391403,41112 Malayalam,229,250,252 Malto,254 Malwi,256 Manchurian,19091 Mandarin,186,231,392 Manjuy,360 Manx,110 596

Marathi,249 597 52,254,256, 258,260 Meru,211 Miao,186 Mijikenda,207, 211 Min,186 Mishing,254 Mixtex,324 Mohawk,157, 18081 Mongolian,186, 19192 Nahua,324 Nama,409 Nandi,205 Navajo,543 Ndebeli,North, 407 Ndebeli,South, 407 Nu,186 Nubi,51 Occitan(langue d'Oc),451 Ojibwe(U.S. Chippewa),153 Oriya,24950, 25253,255 56,261 Oromo,205 Otomi,324 Papiamentu,298 Pashtu,229 Persian,50,190 Pictish,113 PidginEnglish, 348 Pinyin,187,198 Pokomo,207, 211 Polish,225,227, 23334,278, 548 Popoloca,324 Popoluca,324 Portuguese,91,

232,349,362, 405,408,411 Punjabi,118, 206,22830, 250,252,259 Puquina,87 Putonghua,197 200 Quechua,2,5, 85105,379 88 Rajasthani,256 Romansh (Retoromans), 51433 Runyankole/Ruc higa,213 Runyoro/Rutoor o,213 Russian,278, 42943,545 Saame,475,478, 481 Sadari,25455 Samburu (Sampur),205, 211 San,4089 Sandawe,205 Sanskrit,6,249 50,252,261 Santali,25354 Saurashtri,256 Schwytzerdtch, 527,530 Sindhi,229,249 50 Somali,205,211 Sotho,North, 407,409 Sotho,South, 407 Spanish,45, 85105,313 26,311,336, 341,35975, 37988,449 73,54142,547 49,550

Sukuma,204 Suryoyo,6,9 Swahili (Kiswahili),203 22,56474 Swazi,407 Sylheti,229 Syriac,192 Taita,211 Tajik,430 Tamil,229,249 50,252,254, 256,25961, 391403,408 Tatar,278 Telugu,249, 252,254,256, 26061,408 Teochew,392 Tepehuan,324 Teso,205,211 Tibetan,186, 191 Tlingit,142 Toba,36162 Tojolobal,324 Trique,324 Tshiluba (Ciluba),564 74 Tsonga,407

Tswana,407 Turkic,430 Turkish,9, 233 Tzotzil,324 Ukranian, 165,227, 233,278 Urdu,118, 206,229 30,249 50,252, 260,408 Uru,87 Valencian (Catalan), 461 Venda,407 Vietnamese, 230 Vlaams.See 598 Flemish Welsh,109 10,115, 12223,125 Wu,186 Xhosa,407, 410,413 Xiang,186 Yi,186 Yiddish,5, 9,27592 Yoruba, 349,352 53,357 Yuc,186 Yuko,186 Zoque,324 Zulu,407 8,410,413, 425

SUBJECTINDEX Accommodation, 255,548 Adulteducation, 488,49193 Annexation,4,463, 547 Apartheid,40526 Arabization,51, 334,33841 Arabophilia,51 Assimilation,4,8, 70,75,116,186, 235,255,409,475, 517,546 Bidialectalism,48 49 Bilingualeducation: immersion,157,163 81,285,371,465, 553;delayed,174 75;double,176 77;earlypartial, 175;earlytotal, 171,17475;late, 17476;submersion in,148; transitional,264, 36971,5012,551 52,55455 Bilingualeducation; dualmedium,71, 73,75,79,420,452, 551,55455; maintenance,395, 5024,552,555; missionaryefforts, 100101,146,207 8,347,364,371, 56668 Bilingualism: additivevs. substractive,341, 553;cognition,72 73,529; complementary,69 ;elitistvs.folk,252 53;institutional,

165,563;mass, 565;monoliterate, 306;replacive,69, 341,553;stable, 71,257,546 Codeswitching,53, 219,253,261,299, 337 Codification.See Standardization Colonialism,117 Colonization,4,88, 347,561,563 Contactlanguage. SeeLinguafranca Continuum,5154, 66,254,305 Convergence,256 57 Creole(s),256,297 310 Culturalpluralism, 251,257,393,561 Diffusionof linguistictraits,255 Diglossia,48,51 55,58,256,349, 353,356,454,461, 462,476,520,526 28,54546 ESL(Englishasa SecondLanguage), 14950,235,237, 306 Ethnicgroups,1 13,54043,546 49,56265 Ethnicity,79,561 Ethniclanguage, 54446,56566 Ethnicmovement, 7,910,11 Ethnicrelations,1 13,54649,56265 Exogamy (intermarriage),4, 8,51,188,191,255, 566 Foreignlanguage,

54446 Functional distributionof languages(bil 599

ingualismwith diglossia),54 55,68 69 ,93, 96,98,215,218 19,234,253 Immersion programs.See Bilingual education Immigrants, students,150 Imperialism,68 Integration,257, 35155,382 Internal colonization,384 Internationalism, 189 Islam,4759 Language: attitudes,168, 226,27980, 28384,300 301,338,546, 600 57172;choice, 2,20322; loyalty,9798, 229,258;shift, 313,48,51, 58,65,72,89 90,120,127, 130,13536, 142,190,192 93,217,242, 25455,257, 451,520,540 43,546,572 73;spread,3, 57,198,573; territorial,73 Language:death, 3,99,153,543; revival,11922, 127,17677,275 92 Language: maintenance,3 13,67,130,135,

19293,218,254 55,451,468, 54042,546, 57273; planningand engineering,57, 59,65,105,124, 208,25862, 27592,33841, 388,39597, 401,41416; policies,244, 257,26970 Linguafranca(s), 3,88,198,200, 2034,2078, 212,216,218, 234,253,255, 298,349,371, 392,406,413, 564 Literacy,efforts toward,103,105, 26162 LWC (Language[s]of Wider Communication) ,3,12,51,249 Mediumof instruction,2, 14748,15557, 17577,196,208 9,21011,213, 26265,28486, 334,414.See alsoBilingual education:dual medium Mesolect,299 300,302,3045 Migrants, migrantworkers, 77,391 Migration,4,8, 51,89,186,189, 22728,23134, 476;in,115,123 ;out,119,127,

130,136 Minorities, linguistic,76, 22545,24765 Miscegenation. SeeExogamy Mothertongue teaching,234 39,26265 Nationalism,7, 1012,117,209 10,27881,351 52,354,463 Nationalists,72 73 Nativepeoples, Native Americans,141 58,163,165 PanArabism,56 Penallaws,111 12 Pidgin(s),35 38,207,252, 256,297,408 Preschools, bilingual,489, 498500 Principleof Proportional Representation (Switzerland), 52223 Racism,227, 242 Radioschools, 1034,212 Retention,255. Seealso Language: maintenance Separatism,11, 7376,79,168 69 SESD(Teaching StandardEnglish asaSecond Dialect),306 Slavery,194 Standard,

standard language,49, 260 Standardization, language,124 25,191,197 98,260 Stylevariation (functional variation),53 55 SummerInstitute ofLinguistics (SIL),103 Territorial Principle (Switzerland), 52122,529 Triballanguages, 249,561 Urbanization,8

ABOUTTHECONTRIBUTORS AFOLAYAN,ADEBISI. Professor,DepartmentofEnglish Language,UniversityofIfe,Ile Ife,Nigeria. ALB,XAVIER.Professor, CentrodeInvestigaciony PromociondelCampesinado,La Paz,Bolivia. ARNBERG,LENORE.Research Associate,Universityof Stockholm,InstituteofLinguistics, DepartmentofResearchon Bilingualism,Stockholm,Sweden. BENTAHILA,ABDELLI. Professor,DepartmentofEnglish, FacultyofArts,UniversitySidi MohamedBenAbdellah,Fez, Morocco. BURNABY,BARBARA.Burnaby LanguageConsulting,Toronto, Ontario,Canada. CORVALN,GRAZIELLA. DirectoraAdjunta,Centro ParaguayodeEstudios Sociologicos,Asuncin,Paraguay. CRAIG,DENNISR.Professorof Language,UniversityoftheWest Indies,FacultyofEducation, Mona,Kingston,Jamaica. DORIAN,NANCYC.Professorof Linguistics,Departmentof Anthropology,BrynMawr College,BrynMawr,Pa.,USA. ELGIBALI,ALAA.Instructor, LanguageCenter,Kuwait University,Kuwait. 601

ESCOBAR, 602 ALBERTO. Professor, Institutode Estudios Peruanos,Lima, Peru. GENESEE, FRED.Associate Professor, Departmentof Englishasa Second Language, Universityof Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii,USA. GOPINATHAN, S.Professor, Departmentof Comparative Studies,Institute ofEducation, Republicof Singapore. HYLTENSTAM, KENNETH. Professor, Universityof Stockholm, Instituteof Linguistics, Departmentof Researchon Bilingualism, Stockholm, Sweden. KOLDE, GOTTFRIED. Professor, Departementdes langueset litterature allemandes, Universitde Genve,Geneva, Switzerland.

LINGUISTIC MINORITIES PROJECT: Xavier Couilland, MarilyMartin Jones,Verity SaifullahKhan, AnnaMorawska, EuanReid,Greg Smith. Universityof London,Institute ofEducation, London,UK. MODIANO, NANCY. Professor, Escuela Desarrollo RegionalLa Cabana, Chiapas,Mexico. MUKEBA, LUFULUABO. Instructor, TeacherTraining College, Kinshasa,Zaire. NAHIR, MOSHE. Professor, Departmentof NearEasternand JudaicStudies, andthe Departmentof Linguistics, Universityof Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. PAULSTON, CHRISTINA BRATT. Professorof Linguistics, Departmentof General

Linguistics, Universityof Pittsburgh,00 Pittsburgh,Pa., USA. RUIZ, RICHARD. Assistant Professor, Educational Foundationand Administration, Universityof Arizona,Tucson, Ariz.,USA. SCOTTON, CAROL MYERS. Professor, Linguistics Program, Universityof SouthCarolina, Columbia,S.C. SHORISH,M. MOBIN. Associate Professorof Comparative Educationand Economicsof Education, Departmentof Educational PolicyStudies, Universityof Illinoisof Urbana Champaign, Champaign,Ill., USA. SIGUAN, MIGUEL. Professor, Institutode Cienciasdela Educacin, Universidadde Barcelona, Barcelona,

Spain.

SRIVASTAVA, 603 R.N.Professor andHead, Departmentof Linguistics, Universityof Dehli,Delhi, India. SWING, ELIZABETH SHERMAN. Associate Professorof Education,St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pa.,USA. TAI,JAMES H.Y.Associate Professorof Chineseandof Linguistics, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Ill.,USA. THOMASON, SARAH GREY. Professorof Linguistics, Departmentof General Linguistics, Universityof Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,Pa., USA. YOUNG, DOUGLAS. Professor, Departmentof Education, Universityof CapeTown, CapeTown,

Republicof SouthAfrica.

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 604

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 605

[Thispageintentionallyleftblank.] 606