Language for Peace, Security and Development: An Overview

Introduction

 

I would like to say right from the beginning that I am going to approach this topic from the angle of language planning or language policy. With this, I shall take language to be a system of communication consisting of sounds, words, grammar or the system of communication used by the people of a particular country or profession. If language is looked at in this way, both the development of culture and the habit of living and working together would have been impossible without language. Language is probably the most valuable of man’s possessions. Language not only enables man to communicate directly with his fellows, it also permits him to store up his experiences and knowledge and to pass this on to succeeding generations. Men, unlike animals, are not obliged to learn all they know by direct experience or by observing and imitating the actions of others. They gain most of their knowledge through the medium of the spoken or written words. Language permits men not only to share the experiences of their contemporaries but also to share those of the many generations who lived before them. Language is as old as any other aspect of culture. Language had its origin very early in man’s history. All known languages are fully developed culturally. (Beals 1971: 4 and 479).

According to Sapir (1929: 209),

 

Language is a guide to ‘social reality’. Though language is not ordinarily thought of as essential interest to the student of social science, it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are very sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.

 

Peace, on the other hand, is regarded as freedom from war, and violence, especially when people live and work together happily without disagreements. Some people are of the opinion that the cause of the conflict between the French and the English speaking people of Canada is language. The same thing they say of the division between the Indian and Spanish elements in a number of Latin American countries. There were also the movements for Scottish and Welsh autonomy in Great Britain, Breton and South French movements in France and the strain between northern and Southern Italy (Glazer 1975: 34). All these could be linked to language problems. As for security, it has many definitions, but the one that will be relevant to our discussion is the one that says that security is the protection of a person, building, organization or country against threats such as crime or attack from foreign countries. Finally, development is taken as a situation when someone or something grows or changes and becomes more advanced[1].

          To me, these three terms are interwoven, for, if there is no war, there will be peace and if there is peace, there will be development.

 

The Nigerian Examples

 

          To show the importance of language, the word the Yoruba use for nation (in the geographical sense) is ‘orílẹ̀-èdè’ (the land of a language) and the territory inhabited by the Yoruba is, therefore, ‘orílẹ̀-èdè Yorùbá (the land of the Yoruba language). Alternatively, one hears ‘ilẹ̀ẹ káàárọ̀; oò jíirē’ (the land of Good Morning; Did you wake well?) (Owomoyela 2001: 5). In Sierra Leone, the Yoruba were called ‘akú’ because of the way they greet one another such as ‘ẹ kú àárọ̀ (Good morning), ẹ kú ọ̀sán (Good afternoon), etc. In Cuba too, the Yoruba were called ‘lukumi’ because of the way they called one another, that is ‘Oluku mi, (my friend).

          On the other hand, the Yoruba refer to the Igbo as ‘Yanminrin’ because that is what they hear when an Igbo speaker says ‘Yem mili’ (Give me water). For their part, the Igbo call the Yoruba ‘Ngbati-Ngbati’ (literally, ‘when-when’) (Owomoyela 2001: 5) on the account that almost all Yoruba sentences are started with ‘Nigba ti’, e.g. ‘Nígbà tí mo rí i … (When I saw him …), nígbà tí mo jí … (When I woke up …)’, etc.

Research, according to Aziza (2006: 188)[2], has shown very clearly that there is a correlation between language and development such that the loss of a language means the loss of an important component of a people’s rich natural heritage and an effective tool for national development. To her, the indigenous languages are the embodiment of the physical, spiritual and psychological well being of the people and such rich heritage can only be made available for tapping and development through the languages. The people’s technological prowess, their medicine, etc. are embodied in their languages.

          Aziza (2006: 189) notes further that in the Niger Delta region, because of its heterogeneity, Nigerian Pidgin English is an indispensable means of intra and inter-ethnic communication. Although, the Nigerian Pidgin English performs this noble function, it has no cultural base and since language promotes development, a lack of interest in the language of the Niger Delta region by both the people and the government can be seen as a principal factor in the lack of the development of the area. This is because it is only through the language that the people understand that they can properly articulate their need as well as develop their potentials. Aziza (2006: ibid.) therefore, concludes that there can be no meaningful development in the Niger Delta region without the development of the languages that make the people unique.

          At the Yoruba-Edo boarder of the Ondo and Edo States, there are those who speak Uneme as their mother-tongue. Some of the other sub-groups in this area regard the subgroup as ‘forbidden’ and disallow their presence in markets and other public places. This is not for any other thing but because of the language they speak. According to Oke (1972: 58-59):

 

In many places in Akoko-Edo and in the Outọ area, chairs used by the Unemeokwa in a public place or in anyone’s house are immediately removed for burning. Membership of this subgroup confers low status and members of other mother-tongues do not learn Uneme.

 

In the same area, other subgroups are also very hostile to Igbirra language and they do not want to learn or use the language.

          During the period when there were three regions in Nigeria, in Western Nigeria, for instance, Yoruba was spoken widely.

 

It was a prestige form …. Place names in Northern Edo were changed arbitrarily from indigenous names to Yoruba names. Non-Yoruba northern Edo people were compelled to take Yoruba baptismal names. In fact, the pressure to conform socio-politically was so strong that learning Yoruba or taking a Yoruba name was not a matter of choice. (Egbokhare 2004: 512).

 

With the creation of the Midwest from the old Western Region, however, the situation changed.

 

Several individuals … dropped their Yoruba names, non-natives street names were given local names and within a decade, Yoruba was almost completely lost from linguistic memory. In fact, in Akoko Edo Local Government Area where a number of people had been forced to adopt Yoruba names, such names have since reverted to their original names. (Egbokhare 2004: 513-514).     

 

Adeniran (1975: 95) found that Nembe and Kalabari are two forms of speech which are structurally related and intelligibility between their speakers is predictable. A linguist therefore concluded that they are dialects of the same language for which a single orthography could be recommended. The Nembe freely acknowledge similarity of their language to Kalabari and claimed to understand the latter but the Kalabari stoutly denied both. According to them, it was the Nembe who learnt Kalabari and it was most unlikely that any Kalabari would learn Nembe. The reason for this is not far fetched. The Kalabari were the largest and the politically dominant group in this area. Because of the proximity of their large towns (Abonema and Bugama) to Port Harcourt, they dominated coastal trade. They were thus more prosperous, and therefore, tended to look down on the Nembe and other Ijaw speaking groups as mere poor country cousins. And so, against any possible conclusion based on similarity, the linguist had to recognize two languages and devised two orthographies.

          The situation with the Degema and Abua is different from that of Kalabari and Nembe. Outside Abua area, there was a village where Degema speakers settle. They were engaged in fishing. The Degema people’s language is a splinter of the Edo group and is totally unrelated to Abuan. But the Degema fishermen have learnt Abuan, the language of the market. About this, the Abuan commented, ‘the Degema can understand us and talk to us, therefore, our languages must be related’ (Adeniran 1975: 95).

          Before the advent of the British Colonial rule and during the periods of Oil Rivers Trade, the Abua, the Odual and Ogbia people who speak fairly related dialects of the same language, for trade purpose, learnt another language in addition to their mother-tongue. While the Abua and Odual learnt Kalabari as a second language, the Ogbia people learnt Nembe. This was because the Kalabari and the Nembe people were the middlemen between these people and the Europeans. They were also using Kalabari and Nembe’s personal and place names. Apart from this, they were using these two languages in elementary education, church services and even at village gatherings.

          But, during the period of the British colonial rule, Kalabari and Nembe were no longer the second languages of these people. The Abuan shifted to Igbo and children were given Ogbia, Odual and Abuan names. Public meetings, church services, litigation at local levels were conducted in local languages, in pidgin or in English, if necessary (Adeniran 1975: 97) and no longer in Kalabari or Nembe.

          After the Berlin conference of 1884-1885, the European colonial powers intensified the imposition of their cultures on the colonized Africans. One of the major cultural elements involved was language. Normal diffusionary processes, that is, the way these cultural elements were spread, in this case, were backed by force. French, English and other European languages were introduced and made compulsory in schools in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and have since remained as the main or official languages in Africa (Otite and Ogionwo 1979: 20). But, the fact is that the adoption of European languages by Africans implies a degradation of their African cultural identity. Such behaviour is also demeaning for, European colonizers ridiculed Africans who attempted to be like them (Coleman 1958: 145).

          Of all the children of the world, according to Fafunwa (1977: 1), the great majority of those called upon to learn in a language other than their mother tongue are children from ex-colonial countries of Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America. To him, the early introduction of a second or foreign language deters cognitive development in children and is partially responsible for pupils or students’ ‘mortality’ rate in developing countries.

 

 

 

 

Examples from Outside Nigeria

         

          When Dutch immigrants flooded into England in the wake of the accession of Williams of Orange and Queen Anne, their English hosts quickly dubbed them Nit-Wits because they responded to every question by saying ‘Ik neit weet (I don’t know). Such designations are not terms of endearment for, each convey pejorative overtones about the ‘outer groups’ (Owomoyela 2001: 6).

          Mithun and Chafe (1979: 8) documented the drive by the Mohawk people of Canada to rescue their language from near-oblivion. The first generation of Mohawks who grew up speaking only English were obliged to face the fact of their differences when they find themselves among white colleagues in school, but they could not define this difference. They therefore embarked on ‘a painful search for identity’ but if they had become proud of being Indian, it was just at this time that the clearest symbol of their Indianesss, the Mohawk language, had become lost to them.

          Recognizing the seriousness of this situation, they instituted aggressive measures to recapture their linguistic heritage. Teachers acquired proficiency in the language in order to teach it to Mohawk children, and their intention was not simply to teach ‘a translation skill’, but ‘a way of thinking … to establish a direct link for children between the Mohawk language and their world (Mithun and Chafe 1979: 28).

          Mithun and Chafe (1979: 32-33) later report the triumph felt by teachers and members of the older generation when children succeeded in correctly forming new sentences in Mohawk. At the time they conducted their research, Mithun and Chafe (1979) identified three distinct groups within the community: an older generation that spoke Mohawk, a teenage generation that spoke only English and young children who spoke Mohawk. With this, Mithun and Chafe concluded their study with the following song:

                  

People

                   Listen to what our ancestors are saying

                   People

                   We are still continually hearing our ancestors’ voices

                   People

                   Our ancestors are saying ‘Use your language again’.

                                                Mithun and Chafe (1979: 32-33)

         

As far as language and culture are concerned, the Japanese have proved implacable in their devotion to a Japanese identity. They employ Western languages in their commercials to lend prestige value to certain commodities, but they also strive, in theory as well as in practice, to maintain social and official monolingualism (Owomoyela 2001: 11-12). Norman French was spoken by the English elite after the Norman Conquest but it gradually yielded to indigenous English over the course of several centuries.

          August 1987 was a red letter day for Aotearoa for that was the day the Maori Language Act became law and Maori was declared to be an official language of Aotearoa. Maori was one of the three languages spoken in New Zealand, the others being English and Pakeha. Maori speakers make up about 12 per cent of the total population of New Zealand.  One of the reasons for the legislation of the language was that English that was the only working language for the vast bulk of Maoridom did not bring about the social unity promised the people for over 150 years, if anything, it proved divisive. According to Prof. Maretu (1992: 52),

 

It is obvious that the choice of one national or official language puts at a disadvantage, persons whose mother tongue is not the one chosen and privileges those who speak the chosen language. If such policies are not applied with care, they may constitute a factor for division rather than unification. The opinion that the use of multiplicity of recognized languages constitutes an obstacle to national unity has no firm established factual basis anywhere.

 

          This language legislation eliminates ‘margin of disadvantage suffered by the Maori people in health, in education and in professional and other attainments. In richness of culture, they will have the advantage’ (Prof. Maretu 1992: 52). In conclusion about the legislation of Maori language, the author has this to say:

 

We should not be lulled into thinking that legislation means acceptance but it certainly does mean acknowledgement and with acknowledgement comes responsibility. Let us not be naïve and think that legislation will ensure the survival of our languages – only we guarantee that. We should all, however, challenge our governments to accept that we are and that we, too, in the large scheme of things, have our right to a place in the sun. If by legislation, the prejudice and antagonism to our language are minimized or eradicated, then all the better but prejudice, as we all know, is part of the human condition and therefore more difficult to combat, but, combat, we must. Linguistic hostility and chauvinism are not to be tolerated. They are the very reason for our languages being in the parlous state that they are … let us be on the alert…. Let us continue to badge, to petition, to challenge and to force the power that be to accept that we may be minority group in our own country but we are heir tto a linguistic bequest that has come to us from the beginning of time and it is our right to be able to sustain it without the overt antipathy and animosity that pervades our societies. We have the right to decide our own destinies and must be given the power to do just that.

Language is central to the cultural identity of both the individual and the community to which he or she belongs. Not only does a language express realities of a particular group, both from within (since the language is shared) and without (since it highlights ones differences), isf a language is lost, the cultural identity of the group is considerably weakened, which in turn alters the very natures of the society of which that group is part. In light of this, it may be considered important to retain, and promote, the Maori language, in order, amongst other things, to develop a diverse and harmonious society (Prof. Maretu 1992: 54).

 

 

Conclusion

 

Many countries such as China are monolingual and use indigenous languages as their official languages and there are peace, development and stability in their countries. Some countries such as Singapore are multilingual and use foreign languages as their official languages, yet, they are peaceful, stable and they are developing. On the other hand, some countries are multilingual and use foreign languages as their official languages and they are neither developing nor peaceful. An example of these countries is Nigeria. Somalia and Rwanda use their indigenous languages as their official languages, yet, they are neither peaceful nor developing. Botswana has thirteen official languages while South Africa has eleven.

 

 

                                                                            

Some people may prefer the endoglosic[3] nations while others may prefer the exoglosic[4] ones. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. This is why one should emphasise that the title of this paper is a political one which is essentially beyond the scope of a linguist or a literary critic. However, as a linguist or a literary critic, we should not stop presenting our views of the current language policies, especially, in Africa and hope that our suggestions will be implemented by government agencies.

Whichever language policy we adopt, let me end by saying that all we want for our people is for them to live well just as their forefathers lived during the reigns of Amúbíẹyá and Olúgbọ́n. This is clearly stated in some Yoruba songs which go thus:

 

                   Amúbíẹyá jọba              Amubieya is now king

                   Ìlú tòrò nini                    Absolute peace reign in the land

                   Amúbíẹyá jọba              Amubieya is now king

                   Ìlú tòrò nini                    Absolute peace reign in the land

                   Ẹtù ò sí mọ́                    There is no need for gun powder, and

                   Ìbọn dàtìmọ́lé                 The guns are all locked up

                   Amúbíẹyá jọba              Amubieya is now king

                   Ìlú tòrò nini                    Absolute peace reign in the land.

And

                   Láyé Olúgbọ́n                During Olugbon’s reign,

                   Mo dáborùn méje           I bought seven headgears;

                   Ẹ ò máa fìwé lórin                   Please take note of my song.

                   Láyé Arẹ̀sà                     During Aresa’s reign,

                   Mo dáborùn mẹfà          I bought six headgears;

                   Ẹ ò máa fìwé lórin                   Please take note of my song

                   Ó dayé Àlàbí                  Now, in the reign of Alabi

                   Mo ra wúlì                     I bought woolen dresses

                   Mo ràrán                        I bought velvet dresses

                   Mo repínrín baba aṣọ    I bought Epìnrín, the king of all

                                                          cloths

                   Àfọ̀lẹ                              Only an idler

                   Ló le pé lẹ̀yí ò dùn                   Will say this is a bad era

                   Àfọ̀lẹ                              Only an idler[5].

References

 

Adeniran, Adekunle (1975), ‘Present States and Problems of Sociolinguistics in Nigeria’, Odu (New Series) 12: 87-107.

Aziza, O. Rose (2006), ‘The Pidgin Factor in the Development of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria’, in Emmanuel L. Chia (ed.), African Linguistics and the Development of African Communities, pp. 184-190. Daksr, Senegal: Council for the Development of  Social Sciences Research in Africa (CODESRIA).

Babalola, Adeboye (1988), ‘Literature in Nigerian Languages and Language Planning in Nigeria: Implication for the Sound Education of Nigerian Youths’, Annals of the Institute of Cultural studies 2: 1-34.

Beals, Ralph L. (1971), An Introduction to Anthropology. Los Angeles: University of California.

Cambridge University Press (2005), Advanced Learners Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chia, Emmanuel L. (2006), ‘Rescuing Endagered Cameroonian Languages for National Development’, in African Linguistics and the Development of African Communities, edited by Emmanuel N. Chia, pp. 115-128. Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Socal Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA).

Coleman, James S. (1958), Nigeria: Background to Nationalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Egbokhare, Francis (2004), ‘Language and Politics in Nigeria’, in Forms  and Functions of English and Indigenous Languages in Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of Ayo banjo, edited by Kola Owolabi and Ademola Dasylva, pp. 507-522. Ibadan: Group Publishers.

Fafunwa, Babatunde (1977), ‘Mother Tongue education: The West African Experience’, Paper presented at the Colloquium of the 2^nd World festival of Black and African Arts and Culture, Lagos, Nigeria.

Francis, W. N. (1958), The Structure of American English. New York: Ronald Press.

Glazer, Nathan (1975), ‘Ethnicity: A World Phenomenon’, Dialogue 8, ¾: 34-46.

Heine, Bernd (1991), Language Policies in Africa’, An Unpublished Paper.

Mithun, Marianne and Wallace L. Chafe (1979), ‘Recapturing the Mohawk laanguage’,  in language and their Status, edited by Timothy Shopen, pp. 3-33. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers.

Nforbi, Emmanuel (2006), ‘Efforts and Challenges Involved in Establishing an Adult Literacy model for Cameroon’, in African Linguistics and the Development of African Communities, edited by Emmanuel N. Chia, pp. 88-97. Dakar, Senegal: Council for the Development of Socal Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA).

Oke, D. Olatunbosun (1972), ‘Language Choice in Yoruba-Edo Border area’, Odu (New Series) 7: 49-67.

Oladeji, Niyi (1991), ‘Language and Political Evolution in African: A Case Study of Some Yoruba Political Songs’, Annals of the Institute of cultural Studies (Obafemi Awolowo University), pp. 19-35.

Otite, Onigu and W. Ogionwo (1979), An Introduction to Sociological Studies. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (NIG.) Ltd.

Owolabi, Kola (2006), Nigerian Native Language Mordernization in Specialized Domain for National Development: A Linguist’s Approach: An Inaugural Lecture Presented on the 29^th of June 2006 at the university of Ibadan. Ibadan: Universal Books (Nig.) Ltd.

Owomoyela, Oyekan (2001), The African Difference: Discourse of Africanity and the Relativity of Cultures (Studies in African and African-American cultures, Volume 10), edited by James L. Hill. New York: Peter Lang and Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Prof. Karetu (sic.) (1992), ‘Language Legislation’, Language of the World 5: 51-54.

Sapir, Edward (1929), ‘The State of Linguistics as a Science’, Language 5: 207-214.

Trager, George L. (1972), ‘Bilingualism and society in Nigeria’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences XVI: 536-538.

---

[1] See Cambridge University Press (2005), Advanced Learners Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[2] See Rose O. Aziza (2006), ‘The Pidgin Factor in the Development of the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria’, in Emmanuel L. Chia (ed.), African Linguistics and the Development of African Communities, pp. 184-190. Daksr, Senegal: Council for the Development of  Social Sciences Research in Africa (CODESRIA).

[3] States which use indigenous languages as their national languages (Heine 1991: 1).

[4] States which declares foreign languages as their official languages (Heine ibid.: 3).

[5] Niyi Oladeji (1991), ‘Language and Political Evolution in Africa: A Case Study of Some Yoruba Political Songs’, Annals of the Institute of cultural Studies (Obafemi Awolowo University), pp. 19-35.