i

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA NSUKKA

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND

OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING

THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION

A Project Report Presented in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree:

Masters of Arts (M.A) in Linguistics (Sociolinguistics)

BY

EZE, VICTORIA U.

PG/MA/05/40072

SUPERVISOR: DR. C.U. AGBEDO

AUGUST, 2010.

i

MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING

THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION

BY

EZE, VICTORIA U.

PG/MA/05/40072

SUPERVISOR: DR. C.U. AGBEDO

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, IGBO AND

OTHER NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

AUGUST, 2010

ii

APPROVAL PAGE

This is to certify that Eze Victoria U. who is a postgraduate student in the

Department of Linguistics, Igbo and Other Nigerian Languages, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka has satisfactorily completed courses and project work for the Degree of the

Master‟s of Arts (M.A.) in Linguistics.

DR. C.U. Agbedo Prof. C.N Okebalama .

Supervisor Head of Department

DATE: DATE: .

Prof. E.E. Okafor

Dean External Examiner

DATE: DATE:

A member of Postgraduate

Committee

DATE:

iii

DEDICATION

Wholly dedicated to the Almighty God.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

For the successful completion of this project, I am sincerely grateful to my

thesis supervisor, Dr. C.U. Agbedo, for the co-operation and pains he took in going

through the whole manuscript and offering valuable advice to improve it. May God

bless you abundantly.

Encouragement for this work came from many sources – lecturers, relations and

friends, to whom I now give sincere thanks. They include Prof. C.N. Okebalama, the

Head of Department, Department of Linguistics, Igbo and Other Nigerian Languages.

Mrs. Grace Prezi, Lecturer in the same department. May the Almighty God reward

them.

Finally, I will not forget to acknowledge the man that God has used to bless my

life, my beloved husband, Mr. G.O. Omeje a lecturer in the Department of Agricultural

Education, Federal College of Education, Eha-Amufu. He is always by side. May the

Almighty God preserve him.

Eze Victoria U.

Department of Linguistics, Igbo

and Other Nigerian Languages,

UNN.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................ i

APPROVAL PAGE ...................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION .............................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. v

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of Study ...................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of the problem ................................................................ 3

1.3. Purpose of Study ............................................................................. 4

1.4. Significance of Study ...................................................................... 5

1.5. Scope and Limitation ...................................................................... 5

1.6. Research Questions ......................................................................... 6

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Theoretical Review………………………………...…………….. 7

2.2 Empirical studies ………………………………………………… 12

2.3 Language Policies in Multilingual Countries……………………. 17

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Design of the Study ........................................................................... 46

3.2 Area of Study .................................................................................... 46

3.3 Sampling and Sampling Procedures.................................................. 46

3.4 Instrument for Data Collection.......................................................... 47

3.5 Method of Data Analysis .................................................................. 48

3.6 Method of data analysis .................................................................... 48

3.7 Validation of Instrument ................................................................... 48

vi

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis ......................................................... 49

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary…………………………………………………….. ……. 64

5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 64

5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………. 66

REFERENCES

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE

vii

ABSTRACT

The main aims and objectives of this research were to identify the implications for

implementing the national policy on Education in multilingual countries with special

reference to the Nigeria situations. Theories of multilingualism and language planning

were discussed. Four research questions were formulated to guide the study. The

sample for the study consists of 200 respondents from ten purposively sampled schools

in the Nsukka Education Zone. The instrument used for the study was the

questionnaire. The data generated were analyzed using the mean of the responses of the

respondents. The result shows that there is no problem in the implementation of

language policy in a multilingual country like Nigeria. The result also shows that

multilingualism affects teaching and learning and general performance of students and

the educational system in Nigeria. Finally, the study identified that the use of mother

tongue/indigenous language should be chosen to enhance academic performances of

students and foster unity in Nigeria.

viii

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Multilingualism or bilingualism being a consequence of language contact has

been so sensitive that so many scholars have made some theoretical and critical

advances on the issues. There have been arguments that there is no such thing as total

monolingualism in any country, not even in countries like the U. S. A., France,

Germany etc, where there is only one official language used by the people.

Trugil (1985), says that multilingualism involves speaking more than one language

indigenously within a frontier. He stresses the fact that multilinguals is a case of the

existence of so many indigenous languages in a particular nation or frontier.

In their own study of multilingualism, Appel and Muyeken (1987) tried to

distinguish two types of multilingual. Individual multilingualism and societal

multilingualism. They describe societal multilingualism as that occurring in a given

society where two or more languages are spoken. Individual multilingualism, to them

is: the capability of using and understanding two or more languages. Bloomfield (1953)

adds to this, by looking at individual multilingual as: that person who possesses native-

like control of two or more languages.

Kloss (1969) came up with a third type of multilingualism known as impersonal

multilingualism. This is a sociolinguistic term he coined to refer to the phenomenon of

multilingual usage in the mass media. This gives the idea of special use of many

languages especially foreign language alongside the national language of a society.

This concept came up during Kloss‟s (1969b) study of the communicational pattern and

verbal strategies in Japan‟s mass media.

Kirsten (1991) holds that what is true of bilingualism holds true also for

multilingualism except where the context dictates otherwise. He goes on to describe a

multilingual society as one in which two or more languages are used by large groups of

the population. On the other hand, bilingualism is seen by Weinreich (1953) as “the

alternative use of two languages”.

Kristen (1991) still identified two situations of multilingualism in terms of

status: what he calls horizontal and diagonal multilingualism. He says that if the

languages spoken in a multilingual society have equal status in the official, cultural and

2

family life of the society, the situation is referred to as horizontal multilingualism.

Canada, to him is a typical horizontal multilingual country. Diagonal multilingualism

obtains only when one of the languages has official status. Tanzania is an example of a

diagonal multilingual country.

Pohl (1965) identifies what he calls vertical multilingualism. This is a case of

diglossia, but one thing is that this involves dialects of the same language rather than

different languages.

So far, we have looked at different aspects of multilingualism as defined by

various scholars, we shall now look at what the opinions of some of those scholars are

on the issue of multilingualism and national development.

Pool (1972), accounting for problems associated with language diversity in any

nation says:

Language diversity, it is claimed aggravates political

sectionalism, hinders inter-group co-operation, impedes

political enculturation, political support for the authorities,

holds down government effectiveness and political

stability.

From his view, we can deduce that he has nothing good or rather positive for

multilingualism. So, in a nation where linguistic differences are the major defining

characteristic for which each group is known. It is most likely that the problems

identified by Pool (1972) above will be very glearing. His observation is more on

political problems caused by the existence of many languages within a nation.

In her study of language diversity and national development in Europe,

Jyotrinda (1968) said that the early cases of political modernization and national

development in Europe, were by and large, based on fairly homogeneous language

communities. She says:

Their problem was mostly one of developing a standard language out of a welter of

variations among related codes.

Her conviction is that the early development in most European countries was

never disturbed by a multilingual situation as we have today in most developing

countries. This does not mean that European countries were purely homogenous. There

3

are really varieties used by various communities of Europe, but these varieties are not

such that should be termed different languages.

Jyotrinda (1968) maintained that: a disagreement of language policy may be

related to language diversity in the country concerned.

She is also of the opinion that when a state faces the problems of competing

languages that one responses to this problem may be to suppress this competition by

imposing one language on the others. From the study of multilingualism in Indonesia,

India, and Pakistan, Jyotrinda (1968) came up with the suggestion that the imposition of

one language on others may succeed in a language situation where competition

involves minimal political changes. Indonesia has a great diversity of languages, yet, it

was possible to impose the language of a small minority as the national language

because political competition of the regional languages for national status was low.

In the light of the views discussed above, a multilingual nation like Nigeria with

glaring language diversity riddled with the problems associated with it as identified by

Pool (1972) faces the big task of evolving an effective language policy and its

implementation in the National Policy on Education.

1.2 Statement of the problem

According to Wikipedia, it is expected, that subjects to successful

implementation a sizeable number of members of the Nigerian community, especially

young school leavers, would reflect the national bilingual or multilingual picture in

addition to English and possibly French, the former being the codes most used in the

country. But with the dearth of specialists in the three major codes, as well as in other

subjects, either at the primary or the secondary school level, it is very uncertain if the

majority of pupils would be able to learn more than one code. This is borne out by the

fact that the Federal Government College are socially privileged while public secondary

schools are less privileged.

Secondly, schools situated in the urban areas are more patronised than those in

the rural communities since the majority of the less privileged pupils are neither in that

Federal Government Colleges nor in the private schools. Small wonder that little or no

success is likely to be recorded in this domain. Added to the teething problems to be

envisaged is the considerable number of codes that pupils from minority linguistic

groups would be obliged to learn. This is likely to be burdensome on many pupils as

4

well of their parents. At the pre-school it is expected learn their mother tongue. This

would help them grow faster in the area of metalanguage and concept formation, a

significant advantage over teaching in a second code. This likelihood is remote.

Unfortunately, only the rich can afford to pay for their wards in the pre-primary school.

A critical analysis of our immediate environment forces us to admit that more parents

these days will even withdraw their children from the primary and secondary schools

when excessive expenditure is demanded.

Finally, at the primary level pupils are expected to learn initially in their mother

tongue or the code of their immediate community. However, judging by the huge

number of Nigerian linguists codes, estimated at close to 500, that could be used, it is

the opinion of linguistic such as Brann (1978), Elugbe and Omamor (1991), Marchese

and Schnukal (1982), Ofuani (1981) and Omamor (1982) that Analophone, extensively

spoken in the urban areas in the south could be developed and adopted as a national

code and also for the adult literacy programme, especially in multilingual states of the

country. In addition to this, some other semi-urban codes of less restricted

communication could be given equal status.

It should be reiterated that one‟s code is part of one‟s identity. Consequently, it

should not be denigrated. To do so invariably means denying one‟s human ability to

communicate. Hence the need to adopt a multilingual approach in solving Nigeria‟s

linguistic problems in public and social life. Far from being a plague, multilingualism in

the country is in fact a source of wealth and strength, which if properly harnessed and

managed will act as a source of synergy for a more effective, directed, guided as well as

vibrant evolution of a modern, economically viable and technologically developed

nation.

1.3 Purpose of Study

The aims and objectives of this research was to identify the implications for

implementing the national policy on Education in multilingual countries.

In a more simplified and clarified note, it is the objective of this research to:

1. Find out whether multilingualism affects the educational system in Nigeria?

2. Find out if the National Policy on Education is relevant in meeting the

problems of multilingualism in Nigeria?

5

3. Find out whether the use of the mother tongue aids learning and enhances

academic performance of students?

4. Find out the merits and demerits of multilingualism?

1.4 Significance of Study

This research will be very significant to educational planners, curriculum

designers and educational administrators in implementing the national policy on

education as it has to do with language policy and study in the educational system.

The research, when completed, and the findings made, will serve as a rich

resource material for researchers in related areas.

Teachers who are saddled with the onerous task of implementing the National

Policy on Education will find this study very valuable as it will expose the facts and

figures about multilingualism in Nigeria and the implications it has in implementing the

National Policy on Education.

Students studying Linguistics and other Nigerian Languages will find this work

useful as a reference material and valuable guide as it has thrown more light on the

problems of multilingualism on the educational system in the country, thus opening the

door for further researchers in the area

The findings of this research will create awareness and motivation to federal

and state governments to discharge their financial roles in the implementation of

language policy in education by carefully mapping out the stages that can be gradually

implemented and evaluated with minimum strains on the dwindling financial resources

of the government. This will involve giving due consideration to:

a. The production of text books, readers, instructional materials and other

gadgets and

b. The training and retraining of teachers on how best to implement the

National Policy on Education as it has to do with language policy. This will

impact very seriously on the use of the mother tongue in childhood

education for better academic performance.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The research will cover the concepts of multilingualism and the problems in

Nigeria. It will also discuss some of the multilingual countries and their language

6

policies and the ways to encourage multilingualism. The research is also limited to

multilingualism and its positive and negative effects on our educational system.

This research will also examine what the National Policy on Education said

about language in Nigeria, the problem of implementing this policy and perhaps the

method to use in the implementation of these policies in order to meet the desired

objectives.

1.6 Research Questions

1. Does multilingualism affects the educational system in Nigeria?

2. Is the National Policy on Education relevant in meeting the problems of

multilingualism in Nigeria?

3. Does the use of mother tongue aids learning and enhance academic performance

of students?

4. What are the merits and demerits of multilingualism?

7

CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL REVIEW

A press issue in multilingual research is the need for work, that is grounded in,

or contributes to, the construction of elaborated theoretical outlooks. On the whole, a

great deal of bilingual and English-language learner literacy research has been

published without explicit reference, or with only incidental reference, to theory about

how multilingual literacy processes might function and develop, how they might be

similar to and different from monolingual literacy processes, and how learning and

using multiple languages might affect one‟s literacy (August & Hakuta, 1997;

Fitzgerald, 1995; Fitzgerald & Cummins, 1999; Garcia, 2000). There are notable

exceptions, such as Berhard‟s (1991, 2000) seminar work toward developing a theory

of second-language reading and Carrell Devine and Eskey‟s (1988) description of

second language reading of an interactive process.

The word theory is complicated to define. Researchers and philosophers who

hold different epistemological stances may attribute different meanings to it (Creswell,

2002; Hill, 1972; 1978). However, most educators and researchers in the social

sciences consider theory to be an inherent part of their work and press for it to be

explicit (Hill, 1977-1978). Theory can be defined as the formal or informal

identification of sets of variables, constructs, or principles and of hypothetical

explanations of relationships between and among those variables, constructs, or

principles. (Creswell, 2002, DeGroot, 1969; Kerlinger, 1965; Mitcheu & Myles, 1998;

Pedhazur & Schmekin, 1991).

For the purpose of this research work, I favour the General Factor Theory

Cronbach, 1970) which states that one generic set of language subprocesses are not

attached to a particular “mode” (reading, writing, listening speaking) as they are

learned. Rather, once a subprocess is learned, understanding is available for use in any

mode.

In a competing theoretical outlook called the Oral Precedence Theory, a

cornerstone tenet is that oral language understanding in the new language form the

bases for reading and writing processes and development in the new language.

8

Hypothetically, new language understanding would be first acquired and

learned in the specific modalities of listening and speaking, and these would then

provide a foundation for learning about reading and writing. Oral understanding in the

new language would become available for use and transfer to reading and writing in the

new language.

These competing theoretical outlooks have implications for whether and how

reading in the new language could begin in concert with listening and speaking in the

new language. According to the General Factor Theory, a student could learn about a

facet or process involved in the new language for example, about a syntactic structure

in the new language – first through listening and speaking, and then his or her

understanding could be used and manifested in reading and writing. It is equally

possible according to this theory that a student could learn about a syntactical structure

in the new language through reading and writing first and that understanding could then

be manifested later in listening and speaking. Conversely, according to the Oral

Precedence Theory, students should first develop some optimal level of oral proficiency

in the new language before learning to read and write it.

The present report consists of case studies of language planning in different

regions of the world. Two nations, relevant from a language planning stand point, have

been chosen from the five regions of the world as defined by UNESCO. The regions

and countries studied are as follows: In Africa: Burkina Faso and Tanzania, in the Arab

states: Morocco and Lebanon, in Asia and the pacific: Cambodia and India, in Europe

and North America: Finland and Spain, and in Latin America and the Caribbean:

Guatemala and Bolivia. The countries evaluated have been chosen because they present

complex linguistic situations. Since the evaluation has been limited to two countries per

region, a large number or interested cases have had to be excluded, but it is hoped that

the countries selected are as representative as possible. Language planning activities in

the countries in question have been evaluated with the help of existing literature and

information from experts in the field. The investigation has particularly focused on the

status and corpus of endogenous (indigenous) and endangered languages on the role of

the educational system in language planning.

Our initial reaction to the term “language planning” may be that it is an

unnecessary or even impossible activity. We perhaps look upon language as something

that cannot be planned we may ask ourselves why people cannot communicate with

9

each other as they have always done. The fact is that people cannot communicate with

each other today as they used to do in the past. Society is developing and language has

to adjust to reality. Political decisions are taken and this may means that new

communities are created which may lack a common means of communication. In cases

such as these, language planning is desirable and indeed necessary.

Language planning has been characterized by Bamgbose (1991:109), referring

to Fishman (1974:79), as “the organized pursuit of solution to language problems”.

Related Nations are “language cultivation”, “Language policy”, and “Language

politics”. In French literature, we find terms such as amusement linguistigue, gestation

linguistigue, planifcation linguistique, politique linguistigue. In English, less conscious

instances of language planning are sometimes designated as “language treatment”. The

“language problems” evoked in the quotation below could include such phenomena as

the lack of a common language in a politically defined unit, the absence of a writing

system, the lack of technical vocabulary, the shortage of school textbooks, and so on.

Presumably every multilingual political unit, in which some languages are stronger and

others are weather (which often means that the later are endangered), can be called a

linguistically problematic area. Even in monolingual nations, the insufficiency of the

national language in any domain has to be regarded as being a linguistic problem. In

fact, every region in the world where languages come into contact, such as through

invasion, migration, or the creation of new nations, is relevant in the context.

Bamgbose also raises the question of the classical division between “status

planning” and “corpus planning”, which he largely but not completely equates with

activities having to do with language policy and implementation respectively. In the

light of the above a discussion of terms, status planning would be equated merely with

language policy or language politics, whereas corpus planning largely overlaps with

language cultivation. Status planning, for example, involves the allocation of languages

to different societal domains, such as the official sphere, education, business, media etc.

The explicit proclamation of a language as the official medium of communication

naturally enhances its importance to a significant extent, but the introduction of a

particular language in schools, for example, can have far-reaching consequences.

According to Bamgbose (1991) corpus planning refers to such activities as the

production of grammars and dictionaries, the design of orthographies the choice of

script, spelling reforms, the production of primers and readers, etc.

10

In normal practice, a policy decision aimed at granting status to a given

language in a particular societal domain is first taken, and is then implemented in some

way, to the extent that some kind of concrete language material is produced. As

Bamgbose (1991:110) points out, policy making without implementation does not lead

to much progress, whereas implementation without policy decisions is difficult to

achieve (although Bamgbose observes that the lack of a policy in some countries has

worked to the advantage of linguists and missionaries who have been able to describe

and codify “exotic” languages without the intervention of the authorities). In fact,

Bangbose (1991 1:133) points out that “it would appear that there is a correlation

between the strength of a country‟s language policy and the nature of its

implementation machinery”.

A third distinction singled out by Banigbose is that of Noss (1971:25), who

observed that policies exist at three levels: official, educational, and general. Official

policy is concerned, with what language (s) is / are to be used at governmental level;

educational policy deals with the question of language use in different kinds of schools;

while general language policy refers to language use in mass communication, business

and contacts with foreigners (Bangbose 1991 : 111). Naturally, a country which

recognizes more than one language at the official level is already automatically

involved in far-reaching language planning. It should be noted, however, that many

countries do not mention explicitly in their constitution which official language (s) they

recognize. In such cases; as Garobaghi (1983: 1) points out, that the language in which

the constitution is drafted is to be considered the official language. Languages other

than the official one (s) are obviously often found in the educational system, let alone in

informal settings.

A final theoretical distinction originally suggested by Haugen (1974) is the

four-stage model for language planning: a norm is selected by modifying or creating a

variety; the norm is then codified (the orthography, pronunciation, grammar and

lexicon are established); its function is elaborated (For example, by coining the

necessary lexical items), and, last but not the least, its acceptance in the community is

ensured.

When it comes to the question of which language (s) to promote, Poth (1997:

17) reminds us of the following important parameters: the number of speakers, the

11

dialect variation, the degree of similarity with neighboring languages, the available

resources and the didactic coefficient.

This research will not be complete without mentioning the sociolinguistic

theory adopted for this work.

There are so many models in sociolinguistics but the one most suitable for this

research is the model of „Acts of Identity‟ propounded by Robert Le page and his

associates in Agbedo (2001). A basic tenet of this approach is that all linguistic

behaviour is stimulated by some social contexts or the other. The individual is

considered to be the locus of language behaviour along with the realization that

individual behaviour at any given moment is largely unpredictable. The individual is

also seen as an active and creative agent, constantly locating and relocating himself

within the multi-dimension linguistic environment through what le page refers to as

„projection‟ and „focusing‟. According to him assumes universal linguistic features but

for him, the individual manipulates these features in creating a social identity but he

creates his rules - - - so as to resemble as closely as possible those of the group or

groups with which, from time to time, he wishes to identify as constrained by a number

of factors. These include;

(a) The extent to which he is able to identify his model groups.

(b) The extent to which he has sufficient access to those model groups and

sufficient analytic ability to work out the rules of their behaviour.

(c) The strength of various motivations towards one or another model and towards

retaining his sense of his own unique identity.

(d) His ability to modify his behaviour.

In conclusion, when we compare the theory of multilingualism and the theory

on sociolinguistics, we found out that, they are all discussing almost the same thing i.e.

discussing individuals, their languages and the society they live in. Each and every one

of them has a role to play in the life of one another, in order to function well in the

society.

12

2.2 EMPIRICAL STUDIES

An individual who is competent in two languages must keep them more or less

separate in language production and reception. How can this be achieved in such a way

that when one language is „on‟ the other is „off.‟ Penfield and Roberts (1959) proposed

a theory which is known as the single – switch theory to account for this phenomenon;

it assumed one mental device, a „switch‟ which operated in such a way that when one

language was on, the other was off. Apart from the problem of the neutral status of such

a device, (the switch was still not more than a metaphor for an unknown device in the

brain) results of experiments using the bilingual version of the stroop procedure showed

that this theory was too simple. Subjects had to respond (i.e., name colour words) in

one language, so that system must be „on‟ but the printed words in the other language

still distracted the subjects and therefore this system was „on‟ too. These findings are in

agreement with the common-sense observation that bilinguals are quite capable of

speaking one language while listening to someone else speaking another language.

These facts can be accounted for in a theory in which two switches are

hypothesized: an output switch and an input switch (Macnamara, 1967). The speaker is

in control of the output switch, choosing a certain language deliberately. But as the

results of the bilingual stroop test show, that he cannot control the input switch in the

same way: subjects were not able to filter out the language of the distracting word. The

input switch is therefore said to be „data‟ driven; the language signal from the outside

operated the switch, whether the bilingual wants it or not.

If these input and output switches really exist, their operation should require time,

like any other mental operation. Various studies were taken to see whether this is so.

For instance Kolers (1966) asked French English bilinguals to read aloud monolingual

and mixed French English passages. The subjects answered comprehension questions

equally well for monolingual and bilingual texts, but the reading aloud of mixed

passages took considerably more time Kolers computed that each switch took them

between 0.3 and 0.5 second. Reacting critically to this early study, other researchers

suggested that Kolers had not differentiated between the input and output switch.

Reading aloud requires both receptive and productive language processing Macnamara

et al, (1968) isolated the output switch in an experiment in which bilinguals had to

write numerals, i.e linguistically neutral stimuli; first in one language, then in the other

13

and then alternating between the two languages. It was found that the task required

more time in the last condition, when the output switch was involved. Each switch took

about 0.2 second.

In a subsequent study, Macnamara and Kushnir (1971) looked at the input switch

separately in a relatively simple experiment. They asked bilinguals to read monolingual

and bilingual passages silently. The subjects read the monolingual passages faster than

the bilingual passages, and each switch took about 0.17 second.

The two switch model appeared to find rather strong support in the various studies.

Even the computation times corresponded neatly. Kolers 0.3 to 0.5 second for input

plus output switch was approximately the same as the 0.2 second for the output switch

and 0.17 seconds for the input switch founded by Macnamara and his colleagues. The

value of the two switch model was later seriously questioned, however on the basis of

observations of natural – code switching in bilingual and new the research result.

Many bilinguals switch from one language to the other in their daily interaction.

This form of code – switching takes place between sentences as well as within

sentences.

Studies which took the structural constraints on switching into account yielded

quite different results. For instance, Chan et al (1983) asked Chinese – English

bilinguals to read a passage with spontaneous or natural switches, and compared the

reading speed with that of a monolingual Chinese passage. They found no differences

between the reading speed for the two conditions. This result supported Paradis‟s

contention that bilinguals do not use a special switching mechanism different from the

mechanism monolinguals employ in language processing. According to Paradis‟s (1977

114), there is no need to hypothesize any special anatomical structure or function in the

brain of the bilingual as different from the monolingual.

The same general neural mechanism that makes a speaker select /k/ and not /t/

in a given context can account for the selection of case instead of from age: with regard

to input, bilinguals have no problem with switches when they can anticipate them. If

not, it takes some time to adjust to the „new‟ code, but this is the same for the

monolingual who needs some extra time for processing a sentence, if he is not

expecting that he will be addressed and suddenly some body asks him a question.

One aspect of bilingual language usage that we will touch upon only briefly is

translation ability. Contrary to expectation, it turns out that bilinguals who are very

14

proficient in both languages are not always good translators. Lambert, Havelka and

Gardner (1959) asked English – French bilinguals to translate lists of English and

French words the speed of translation did not correlate with the subject degree of

bilingualism probably, because bilinguals use their two languages in different domains

of their life.

They are connected to different cultural experiences. If a bilingual speaker

always uses language (A) in informal, and language (B) in formal setting, it will be

difficult to translate a passage referring to experiences in informal setting from

language (A) into language (B). It might take some extra time to find „the right words‟

for these words generally do not come up in the situation in which (B) is spoken.

In using language, Herbert Clark proposed a broadly integrative theory of

language and action, in his book, he examines both the social and cognitive aspects of

language use, drawing from speech act theory by (Austin 1965; Searle 1965; Allen

1980), theories of discourse and dialogue (Reichman 1985; Grosz and Sider 1990), and

theories of social interaction (Goffman 1970; Brown and Levison 1987; Sacks,

Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). In order to integrate these different perspectives, the

book relies on empirical research by Clark and his students over the last fifteen years.

Clark began the work with an overview of its‟ central thesis that “language use

is really a form of joint action” i.e, action carried out by ensemble of people acting in

coordination with one another. As a joint activity, conversation consists of a joint

action and the individual action by the conversational participants that constitute the

joint action (Bruce 1975; power, 1974; Clark and Carlson 1982; Cohen and Levesque

1991; Gross and Sidner 1990). Joint activities require coordination of both the content

of the activity and the process by which the activity moves forward. The source of

conversants, ability to coordinate is their common ground, the set of knowledge, beliefs

and suppositions that they believe they share (Stalnaker 1978; Clark and Marshall

1981; Prince 1981). Common ground makes it possible for a speaker and a hearer to

coordinate on what the speaker means and what the hearer understands the speaker to

mean. these core ideas are expanded and elaborated.

One core claim is that communicative acts are the primitive- level actions that

all joint activities consist of. Speaker and hearers coordinate the production and

interpretation of communicative acts through the mediation of a signaling system

(Schilling 1960; Lewis 1969). The signs of the signaling system and their interpretation

15

are often defined by convention, but the signal and its‟ interpretation can also rely on

the speaker‟s and heare common ground. Conversants accumulate common ground

with joint signaling events, which move the conversants from one state of the

conversation to the next. At the utterance level, each joint signaling event includes a

presentation phase, in which the initiator presents a contribution, and an acceptance

phase, in which the other conversants indicate a degree to which they understand and

accept or reject that contribution. Conversants try to manage the production and

interpretation of communicative acts with the least collaborative effort, i.e., with the

smallest cumulative effort of the speaker and hearer combined. Since signaling systems

encompass all types of signs, not merely those signaled by purely linguistic means,

conversation can use any of a complex set of signals, such as facial expressions,

gesture, speech, and shared awareness of actions and objects in a shared environment

(Brennan 1990).

A second core claim is that dialogue has a layer of structure above the level of

communicative acts. The conversants base their interpretation of each utterance level

act on the assumption that each utterance level signaling event contributes to another

joint action, namely some structured purpose, which defines a larger joint activity (goal

or plan) at the discourse level (Bruce 1975; Power 1974; Allen and Perrault 1980;

Litman 1985). At the discourse level, each joint signaling event consists of individual

segments, or section in Clark‟s terminology. A transition between two sections and

another depends on a set of relations that can hold between sections, such as another

being subsequent to some other being a part of the other.

Computational linguists who read this study will notice that these core ideas are

consistent in many ways with commonly assumed planning model of dialogue in

computational linguistics. While Clark does not always make clear the relationship

between his proposals and work in computational linguistics, many researchers in

computational linguistics have used these ideas within computational frame works that

are more precise and testable. Clark argues that his perspective is inconsistent with

planning models of dialogue, but Clark‟s view of planning mechanisms appears to

reflect the state of the art circa 1971, when STRIPS was first proposed (Fikes and

Nilsson 1971). He rejects all models based on planning because “people ----------don‟t

know in advance what they will actually do (because) they cannot get any thing doing

without the other joining them, and they cannot know in advance what the other will

16

do”(P.319). However, it is not beyond the ability of current planning and control

mechanisms to respond dynamically to a change in the environment or an unpredictable

response by a conversational partner (Barto, Bradtke, and Singh 1995) Further more,

plan–revision mechanisms have been successfully used to model these phenomena

(Cawsey 1993; Carletta 1992).

An additional thread that Clark integrate into his account is the effect of social

relationships on language production and interpretation. Following Goffman (1970),

and Brown and Levinson (1987), Clark claims that the production of each utterance

level signaling event is governed by a set of social constraints that derive from the

social situation in which the conver station is carried out and the social relationship

that holds between the conversant. These theories claim it is primarily the orientation to

social constraints that leads to many indirect forms of communicative acts.

The use of planning representations in the interpretation of these indirect speech

acts has been the focus of much work on computational linguistics (Perrault and Allen

1980, Litman 1985; Mcroy and Hirst (1995), but these theories have had little impact

on models of language production used in computational linguistics (with the exception

of models reported by Hovy (1990) and Walker, Calm, and Whittaker (1997).

Thus, Clark provides a view of language use that integrates a number of

perspectives, many of which have (individual) already been influential in

computational linguistics. The integrative model that Clark presents has manly

complexities, but the book is accessible to readers with little or no back ground.

The claims are nicely illustrated with excerpts from naturally occurring

dialogues and backed up by empirical research by Clark and his students. What is most

remarkable about this book is the degree to which it reflects the convergence of various

branches of discourse and dialogue theory on set of common models based on

theoretical perspectives in linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociolinguistics and

computational linguistics. As a result, although the book is not written for computation

audience, it should be of interest to computational linguists studying language as a

means of acting in the world described as bilingual or multilingual. In the first situation,

the two or more languages spoken by two different groups and each group is

monolingual, a few bilingual individuals take care of the necessary inter-group

communication as is the case in ex-colonial countries where the colonialists and a few

neo-colonialist elite spoke the colonial master‟s language while the indigenous people

17

spoke the local language. In societies of the second type, all people are bilinguals.

Approximations to such a form of societal bilingualism can be found in Africa

countries and India where people speak more than two languages. In the third form of

societal bilingual, one group is monolingual, and the other bilingual. In most cases, this

last group will form a minority perhaps not in the numerical or statistical sense, but

rather in the sociological sense. This situation, Appel and Muysken further note, is

typical of what obtains in Greeland, where the people who speak Greenlandic Inuit

must be bilingual, i.e. learn Dannish, while Dannish speaking group, which is

sociologically dominant, can remain monolingual.

This notwithstanding, those types of bilingual societies are more of theoretical

forms, which in reality do not exist in a pure form in the practical world of our

contemporary times. As Appel and Muysken observe, different mixtures are much

more common, given that the linguistic situations of most countries is far more

complex, with more than two groups and more than two languages involved.

2.3 LANGUAGE POLICIES IN MULTILINGUAL COUNTRIES

Agbedo (2007) said that many nations historically have used language policies

most often to promote one official language at the expense of others, many countries

now have policies designed to protect and promote regional and ethnic languages

whose viability is threatened. Language policy is what a government does either

officially through legislation, court decision policy to determine how language are used,

cultivate language skills needed to meet national priorities or to establish the rights of

individuals or groups to used and maintain languages. The preservation of cultural and

linguistic diversity in today‟s world is a major concern to many scientists, artists,

writers, politicians, and leaders of linguistic communities. Up to one half of the 6000

languages currently spoken in the world are estimated to be in danger of disappearing

during the 21st century. Many factors affect the existence and usage of any given

human language, including the size of the natives speaking population, its use in formal

communication, geographical dispersion and the socio-economic standing of its

speakers. National language policies can either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of

some of these factors. Language policy laws can be categorized in a number of ways

such as the following: assimilation policies, non-intervention policies, differentiated

legal statute policies, vocalarization of the official languages policies (unilingualism),

18

bilingual or trilingual policies, strategic multilingualism policies, linguistic

internationalization policies.

According to him, a policy of assimilation is one that uses measures to

accelerate the downsizing of one or more linguistic minority group(s). The ultimate

goal of such policies is to foster national unity inside a state (based on the idea that a

single language in the country will favour that end. It is based on the belief that every

person in a given society should be able to function in the dominant language regardless

of which language that person speaks. Countries that have such policies include

Afghanistan, Burma, Indonesian, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo (United Nations Protectorate),

Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, Vietnam. A policy of non-intervention consists in choosing

to allow the normal rapport between, the main linguistic group and the minorities

evolve on it own. This almost invariably favours the dominant group. Sometimes such

policies are accompanied by administrative measures protecting certain minorities.

Such policies exist in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria,

Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chile, Congo-Kinshasa, Cote d‟Ivoire, Cuba, Czech

Republic, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Germany,

Gibraltar, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts

and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, El Salvador, San Marino,

Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vermont.

Agbedo (2007) differentiates legal statute policy and recognizes a different legal

statute for a given language usually aims at allowing the coexistence of multiple

linguistic groups inside a state. Typically, the majority has all its linguistic rights

secured and sometimes promoted while the minority or minorities are given special

protection for their language. Countries that have this type of policy include Albania,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, California, China, Croatia, Estonia, European

Council, Republic of Macedonia, Guatemala, Latvia, Lithuania, Manitoba, Ontario,

Netherlands, New Mexico, Paraguay Quebec, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,

Sweden, Wales, Yukon, Unilingualism, as a policy favours one official language.

Sometimes, it favours the (or a) national language, sometimes it favours a colonial

language with a strong influence internationally. In some cases, such policies are

accompanied by measures recognizing and protecting minority languages or indigenous

languages. This approach may be considered in two broadly different types of

situations: where the official language is also the first language of the majority of the

19

population, and where it is not. Such countries where this policy is adopted include

Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Cyprus, Croatia,

East Timor, Egypt, Estonia, Franca, India, Iran, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait,

Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Republic of Macedonia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mexico,

Moldova, Montenegro, North Korea, Nepal, Peru, Republic of Philippines, Poland,

Quebec, Saint Pierre and Mongolia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Korea, Sri

Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Voivodine.

There are many ways in which these policies can be applied. It could be based

on non-territorialized individual rights or territorialized individual rights. A policy of

bilingualism based on non-territorialized individual rights recognizes the same right to

all members of a community/territory. This is practised in the following countries.

Belarus, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Tchad, Djibouti, Guinea, Hong

Kong, Ireland, Kenya, Kiribati, Matta, Nauru, New Brunswick, New Zealand,

Northwest Territories, Norway Nunavut, Rwanda, Samoa, South Africa, Tanzania ,

Tonga, Tuvalu. A language policy based on territorialized individual rights recognizes

the same rights for all members of a community within a specific region. This is the

traditional practice in the Acosta Valley, the Balearic Islands, Basque Country.

Brandenburg, Brittany, Catatonia, Channel Islands, Corsica, Faeroe, Finland, Fruili,

Venezuela Giuliani, Galicia, Haiwan, Isle of Man, Microriesia, Navarre, Northern

Ireland, Nicaragua, The Philippines, etc. A policy of this type based on territorial rights

is practised in Belgium, Cameroon, Frisqourg, Grison, Switzerland, Tioino, Valais. A

policy of multilingualism based on non-territorialized individual rights recognizes the

same rights for all members of a community whatever their location in the national

territory. This is the policy adopted and practiced in Singapore in linguistic

internationalization policies. We have the linguistic policies where both local and

international languages are recognised as official.

Another way of looking at language policy is Fishman (1971) cited in Agbedo

(2000) which recognizes three types labelled A, B and C. According to Agbedo

(2000:192), all the three types linger on the notion of a Great Tradition and its

relationship to the twin goals of nationalise and nationalism. Fishman (1971) defined

the great tradition as the assumed existence of a set of cultural features-law,

government, religion, history, which are shared by the nation and can serve to integrate

the members of the State into a cohesive body. Such a Great Tradition usually has as

20

one of its manifestations and its major vehicles of expression, a language, which very

often is the appropriate choice for adoption as the national language or official

language. The existence or non-existence of a Great Tradition in a given nation state

determines which of the policy types to adopt. The type A policy is adopted in a nation-

states where the ruling elite is of the opinion that there is no Great Tradition, hence the

option of creating an exoglassic state by adopting the language of the ex-colonial

masters. This is usually the preferred option in linguistically heterogeneous countries

such as Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, etc. Type B policy is adopted in endoglossic countries

where the elite acknowledge the existence of a Great Tradition with a related language

of expression. This is the typical case in Israel, Somalia, USA, France, UK, Spain,

Australia, New Zealand, etc. Type C policy is adopted in mixed States, which as

Agbedo (193) observes, “…….recognizes the existence of several competing Great

Traditions, each with its own social, religions or geographical base and linguistic

traditions”. This situation is most typical of Common Wealth-Asia, specifically India

where Hindi is the National and Official Language. (NOL) with English as a subsidiary

Official Language (OL) and fourteen indigenous languages as Regional Official

Languages (ROL).

We also note typical ideologies described by Cobarrubias (1983), which may

motivate decision making in language planning in a given society. These as listed by

Agbedo quoting Cobarrubias include the ideologies of linguistic assimilation, linguistic

pluralism, vernacularization, internationalization, linguistic assimilation ideology

derives from the belief that everyone, regardless of origin should learn the dominant

language of the society. This is the ideology, which informed USA‟s melting-pot policy

that adopted the WASP core cultural consensus and English as its language of

expression. The same goes for French in France, Portuguese in Portal, Spanish in Spain

and indeed all endoglossic states. Linguistic pluralism ideology derives from the

recognition of more than one language, English/French in Canada, Afrikaans/English in

South Africa, Finnish/Swedish in Finland, etc. Vernaculanzation ideology derives from

the modernization and standardization of an indigenous language and its adoption as an

official language, for example, Neo-Melanesian in Papua New Guinca, Swahili in

Tancania, Kenya, Uganda, Quechua in Peru, Tagalog in the Philippines. Hebrew in

Isreal. Turk in Turkey. Internationalism as an ideology refers to the adoption of a non-

21

indigenous language of wider communication as an official language, for instance,

English in Nigeria, Ghana, India, Sierra Leone etc.

In a review of language policy and planning research reminiscent of Cobarruba

(1983), Galdino reports that Reichnan (1985) identify current interest in examining how

language policies serve as mechanisms of social control by dominant elites and also

stress how all policies are ideological in nature although the ideology may not be

apparent or acknowledged. Tollefson (1995) also discusses how language policies at all

levels reflect relations of unequal power and that language policies are both outcomes

of and sites for power struggles. Among other contributions to language policy analysis

is Ocha (1995) who presents a five-step typology that contructed a continuum from

subtractive to additive bilingual education policies. He describes the prevailing

practices in the United States as “Traditional bilingualism” operating under an

assimilationist ideology. Another contributor, Schmidt (1997) describes the three

positions of linguistic pluralism (advocating acceptance and respect for linguistic

diversity along with the right to non-discrimination on the basis of language and the

right to ethnolinguistic – cultural reproduction). Linguistic assimilationist (language

loss in the name of socio-economic “advancement”) and “Latino nationalist” (creation

of Spanish dominant language domains within the U.S.) in current debates surrounding

language policy that affects Latino.

In the countries of Africa, most of which are multilingual, the issue of language

policy with reference to language choice in education is fundamental to any discussion

of the role education plays in all facets of development in this continent.

Before the advent of European colonialism, the history of language policy in

Africa started with the introduction of Islam in parts of North, West and East Africa,

where Muslim communities emerged with basic literacy and higher education in

Arabic. But it was during European colonial rule that definite language policies were

enunciated for the first time, with far-reaching consequences for the educational,

literacy, linguistic, economic and cultural development of modern African countries.

Various, and often divergent, language policies were introduced by the Portuguese,

French, Spanish and British colonial powers. There was also the case of South Africa,

where the ruling Afrikaner nationalist party enforced a language policy that was aimed

at developing their language as the lingua Franca, language of education and culture,

and a strong competitor with English.

22

Each colonial power had its own cultural and political standpoint that gave rise

to its particular brand of language policy. There were often conflicting approaches to

language policy, because the European missionaries, government officials and settlers

had divergent opinions on how to deal African colonial subjects.

Wikipedia factors that have influenced language policies include the attitudes of

the colonial administration and the African government after independence, the

multilingual (or monolingual) nature of each country, the level of development of its

languages as vehicles of modern communication and the desire to acquire a modern

technological culture. African multilingualism. Africa is the most complex multilingual

part of the world in terms of numbers of languages, the sizes of the communities

speaking them, and the area each language covers (Alexander, 1972). The problem of

delineating languages and dialects, and the variation of names of languages, makes it

difficult to estimate the actual numbers of language in Africa. Ki-zero (1981) attributes

the presence of so many languages to the sparseness of population. He says:

The very vastness of the African continent, with a diluted and

therefore itinerant population living in a nature at once generous

with fruits and minerals, but cruel with its endemic and

epidemic diseases, prevented it from reaching the threshold of

demographic concentration which has always been one of the

preconditions of major qualitative changes in the social,

political and economic spheres.

Despite the complex nature of this multilingualism, a continuum of

communication networks existed through social, economic and military contacts. This

facilitated communication and developed individuals with multilingual abilities.

From Wikipedia we know that the scramble for Africa and its eventual arbitrary

partition created geographical entities that completely ignored ethnolinguistic realities

in most cases. At one extreme, for example, are relatively small areas such as

Cameroon with more than 100 languages, while at the other extreme there are countries

with one predominant mother tongue, such as Botswana, Burundi, Lesotho, Rwanda,

Somalia, and Swaziland. However, even in these countries, individuals are likely to be

multilingual, often speaking at least one African and a European language.

23

Before the advent of colonial rule, there were no apparent language policies

except in areas dominated by Islam or, in the case of Ethiopia by coptic Christianity. In

the Muslim areas in Africa, followers of this religion were expected to acquire basic

literacy in Arabic enable them recite the Koran and other important religious texts.

Areas of the Sahel in West Africa covering such countries as, Burkina Faso, Mali,

Northern Nigeria and Senegal are cases in point, while in East Africa, Islam had spread

to the whole coast of East Africa as early as the tenth century A. D. However, the

Arabic language did not gain a foothold as there were very few Arabic-speaking

settlers. Islam was spread in these countries by the first few African converts who were

often chiefs of their areas. The introduction to the Arabic script nonetheless enabled

these Muslims to develop literates‟ traditions in their own African Languages. We have,

therefore, languages such as Fulani, Hausa, Somali, Swahili, Wolof and Yoruba with

relatively extensively literatures using the Arabic script Swahili, for example,

developed epic, religious and popular poetry in previous centuries.

The language was used as an official language of the court as Swahili letters

from the Sultan of Kilwa on the Tanzanian coast to the Portuguese Governor-General in

Goa in the seventeenth century attest. Language policy in such Muslim areas then was

to learn sufficient Arabic to recite the sacred books and to have adequate mastery of

their own African language to be able to understand the translations of Arabic religious

texts and Islamic jurisprudence. A few educated scholars would also learn and master

the Arabic language, and there are many classical works written by African scholars in

the Arabic language. Of course, the broad masses had no working knowledge of this

language, even though they might be bilingual or multilingual in African languages.

Colonial administration: It was during colonial rule that we see the emergence of

definite language policies. Different colonial powers tended to have their own language

policy as part of the ethos of their imperial attitudes. The Germans, the British and the

Dutch favour the use of African vernaculars or lingua franca as media of education at

the lower levels of education and administration.

The missionaries of those countries devised orthographies, and wrote grammars

and dictionaries from African languages, as a step towards developing literacy in

indigenous languages. The objective was to teach the Bible and other religious texts in

the mother tongue, as this was considered the correct way to impart the message of

24

God. We see in the areas ruled by these powers therefore, a development of a literate

tradition in the Roman script.

Brann (1982) has interesting views on language policies in Africa. He noted that

the Germanic races, including the German, British and Dutch, held a more protestant

view of peoples and their individualistic languages and cultures, while the Romance

colonial powers the French, Portuguese, Hawaiians and Spanish- had a more „Catholic‟

attitude in their outlook, going back to the period of the Roman Empire.

The colonial policy of the French tallied with their own policy at home, where

language was developed as a means of nation-building in the reign of Franco in the

sixteenth century and onwards. In the seventeenth century, the French Academy was

inaugurated with the aim of providing a unified language to a country that still spoke

many dialects and of encouraging the growth of a high culture through a normative

form of standard French. French language policy in Africa was promoted by the

Alliance Francoise (originally called Alliance pour la propagation e la purification de la

language Françoise). The French were concerned that pidginized forms of French

should not emerge in their colonies and that in the colonies only metropolitan. French

as spoken at home must be taught and promoted. The British, for example, recognized

the existence of English-based creoles and pidgins, while the French for long time

refused similar recognition.

In the belief that French was the most cultured language, and had a civilizing

mission, French colonial language policy discouraged research into or development of

African languages. French was to be the only official language of administration,

education and culture. As a consequence, African languages in areas governed by the

French were the least developed, if developed at all, at independence. Most of these

language had not even acquired orthographical system, despite the well-known fact that

these language were the true vehicle of communication among Africans. There was a

deceptive assumption on the part of the French that all education from the nursery to the

University was entirely conducted in French, an impossible situation, since there were

neither adequate teachers nor materials for such a comprehensive policy.

In Madagascar, the French implemented the provisions of the Brazzaville

Conference of 1945, which aimed at the assimilation programme of „education in

French only‟. Malagasy reappeared in 1955 but was taught as a foreign language, like

English.

25

From Wikipedia we learn that the Portuguese had an even more intolerant

policy towards African languages. On the basis of their political stand that the overseas

territories of Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde were an inalienable

part of metropolitan Portugal. They took stern measures to ensure that no African

languages were promoted. They went as far as punishing missionaries who used

African languages in education. The direct result was that at independence Portuguese

had to be accepted as the official and national language of these countries by African

governments, as there was no alternative.

The Germans, in their East-African territories up to the end of the First World

War, had a policy of promoting Swahili as the lingua franca. In the then Tanganyika,

both German and African civil servants and members of the armed forces had to know

Swahili to be employed, a fact which rapidly helped the spread of this language. Also,

German missionary scholars such as Rebmann, Krapf and Buttner wrote grammas of

Swahili and collected manuscripts in Swahili Arabic Script of pre-twentieth century

classical literature which are still to be found in the libraries of the University of Berlin,

Hamburg and Leipzig.

From Wikipedia we learn that German missionaries opened schools every where

and worked on the development of orthographies and texts in Tanzanian languages. The

same is true in parts of British-ruled Africa such as Zambia (Central Africa), where

Chibemba was developed, Zimbabwe (Shona and Nedbele) and Malawi (Chichewa). It

can be said that as a result of the German and British colonial language policies, all

major African languages were fairly developed, and widely used in the education

system and administration. There is also a rich tradition of academic research on

African languages by German and British scholars in their universities.

The Germans, the Belgians (in Ruanda Burundi) and the British encouraged the

growth of multilingualism in Africa languages and bilingualism in Africa Lingua

Franca and their European languages. Language policies in education differed,

depending on the lobbies at work. The general pattern however, was the use of local

languages up to elementary class three as the medium of instruction, and then, if there

was a developed lingua franca such as Swahili and Hausa, that would take over for

another two or three years, after which English would continue as the medium. English

would be taught as a subject right from the start. The colonial German government had

also participated in the building of schools, requiring that indigenous people must be

26

taught Swahili and Arithmetic in order to produce clerks, craftsman and skilled manual

workers. German colonial officers too were compelled to learn Swahili and other

African languages before they were sent to Africa. Facilities for the study of Swahili

were created in certain German universities.

The British in Tanganyika continued to encourage the teaching of Swahili and

other African languages when that country was mandated to them after the first World

War. It was such positive action by the German and British rulers that made Swahili

emerge as a candidate to be the national/official language of the United Republic of

Tanzania.

From Wekipedia we know that the British followed similar policies in West

Africa, encouraging the development and use of African languages and lingua franca.

Thus, we see such languages as Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and many others in Nigeria well

developed at independence. In Kenya, with a politically strong settler community, there

were three groups influencing language policy. The missionaries wanted to develop the

vernacular languages, of which there are over forty, for the purpose of elementary

education and catechism. The settlers favoured Swahili and the vernaculars, while

British civil servants saw the introduction of English as early as possible in the

education system as the best way of ensuring African progress. Eventually, in the

1930s, mother tongues were used in lower primary education. Swahili was introduced

in the intermediate levels, and English took over in the upper primary and higher stages.

But by the 1950s the policy was to used English right from nursery school as medium

of instruction. Ethiopia and Somalia: Ethiopia is the African country with the shortest

period of European colonization. It also has an abundance of indigenous written records

of its history, literature and sacred texts using an indigenous script (Bender et al., 1976).

The Aksum Kingdom in the fourth century A. D. used Ge‟ez, the ancient classical

language as the official language of administration. Ge‟ez also became the church

language. Ethiopia is multilingual and multiethnic, According to Bender et al (1976)

there are about a dozen Semitic languages, twenty-two Cushitic, eighteen Omotic and

eighteen Nilo-Saharan, English, French and Italian have been the vehicles of

introducing Western culture and the media of higher education in this country, Italian

and French have been gradually replaced by English, while Arabic serves as a lingua

franca among Muslim Ethiopians, and is used as the language of religious teaching.

Eritrea was Federated to Ethiopia in 1952, its official languages having been Arabic and

27

Tigririnya. However, the revised constitution of Ethiopia (Proclamation 149 of 1955,

Article 125) declared Amharic as the only national official language of the whole

empire (Abdulaaziz, 1991). Other Ethiopia languages were completely suppressed, a

fact that led to a great deal of resentment. With the overthrow of Haile Selassie and the

advert of the Marxist regime of Mengistu Haile Mariam, the language policy was

radically changed. The policy now was to recognize the linguistic, cultural and social

rights of all nationalities, Article 5 of the 1974 National Democratic Revolution

programme of Socialist Ethiopia States: within the envious of nationality, each

nationality has the right to determine its political, economic, and social life, and use its

own language.

Somalia is one of the most homogenous areas of African in terms of ethnicity,

language, culture and religion. Throughout this country the Somali language has been

in contact with Italian, Arabic and English. Contact with Islam and Arabic goes back

many centuries. During colonial rule English was used as the official language and

language of education in the North while Italian prevailed in the south of the country,

including the capital Mogadishu. With the Egyptian revolution of 1952 and the pan-

Arab/pan-Islam and pan-African policies of Nasser, Arabic was introduced in a very big

way in Somalia, Arabic primary and secondary schools were opened in large numbers.

Tertiary education in Arabic was also introduced and there was a major programme of

scholarship awards for Somali students to study in Egypt. All this resulted in the Arabic

language becoming a strong second language and later the acceptance of Somali as an

Arab country.

During colonial rule, the Italian government completely ignored the Somali

language and used Italian for all official and educational purposes. Very few Somali

could enter primary and secondary schools, which were mostly for Italian and mulattos.

During the United Nations trusteeship period of 1950-1960, however, the Italian

government made a commitment to provide education of good quality that would

prepare Somalis for independence in the Southern part. English continued as the official

language of education in the North.

At independence, when the two parts were joined, there was a curious linguistic

dilemma. The North had English while the South had Italian as the official make

languages, and Somali had become the common language of oral communication in all

aspects of political, economic and cultural life of the country. Somali, up to this stage,

28

had no official written system. There was a passionate national debate as to whether

Somalia should adopt the Arabic or the Roman, or should devise an indigenous script.

This wrangling delayed the introduction of Somali Revolutionary Council which under

Siad Barre declared that henceforth the Roman script would be used as the official

orthography (Latin, 1977), Sino then, the Somali Language Academy has done

tremendous work to develop Somali as a working national official language. At present,

Somali is used as the only medium in primary and secondary schools, making it the

only country in sub-Sahara Africa to provide secondary education in the indigenous

language. Afrikaner linguistic nationalism from about 1875. The policy was to develop

Afrikaner into a modern language of literature and technology, and also as the official

language of at least the Afrikaner community. The South African Banta Act of 1953

created the apartheid policy of separate development, under which the African would

live in their own specified areas. In the beginning, the policy was to encourage the use

of mother tongues as media of instruction for subjects in the primary and secondary

schools, as means of consolidating the linguistic and cultural apartheid. This never quite

worked, as will been seen below. Later, in the 1950s, there was a deliberate policy of

teaching Afrikaans in all African schools. The Banta homelands were considered as an

Afrikaner backyard, not to be exposed to English or other languages. Later, the Black

consciousness movement led by Steve Biko insisted on reversing this policy in favour

of English.

In an attempt to take a global view of Nigeria‟s language problem. It would not

be wrong to conclude, in the light of Simpson‟s observation that such attempts are

extremely few. Simpson has observed that Nigeria intellectuals who feel there should

be a change in the linguistic status Quo have not usually been forthcoming on the

question of the type and modality of change regarding the question of a national

language. The paucity of materials on the question bears him out (I shall, for the

purpose of this research, concerned with the following proposals: Simpson (1978),

Osaji (1979) and Olagoke (1982).

Simpson (1979), His position on the national language question represents the

most unequivocal one in the literature up to this point. He sees the choice of a Nigerian

language as the national language in place of English as the ultimate aim of a national

language policy for Nigeria. He, however, draws a line between the ultimate aim of the

policy and what he calls the “Immediate objective” of the policy. The ultimate objective

29

presumably represents the preconditions for the ultimate aim. His proposal is, to a large

extent, an explication of the immediate objective of the national language policy.

His proposal consists of four “phases” each of these will be referred to in this

research. Simpson suggests that the national language policy should first aim at what he

called limited official multilingualism. This limited official multilingualism entails

taking stock of the languages within each State, the approximate number of users of

each language and the domains of use of the language. Decision will then be reached

“either by consensuses or on those to be considered as the official language particular

States, apart from English. These official languages will then be referred to as Nigeria‟s

official languages in addition to English. He tentatively proposes a maximum of three

as state languages apart from English. It is difficult to see why it is necessary to know

the approximate number of users of each language since, according to Simpson, this

choice is to be made “either by consensus or referendum”. A democratically conducted

referendum is certainly independent of official statistics on language census.

The second phase in Simpson‟s framework concerns the introduction of

designated state languages into public life, such as in the mass media, business and

education. In addition, he suggests that children in the geographical South of the

country be taught a language of the north and vice versa. The limitation of Simpson‟s

proposal comes from the following suggestion of his (p7)

That the choice of language (out of the state languages

spoken in particular areas although many towns have to

create classes for more than one state language, especially

in state capitals. that schools in areas whose languages are

not among and where the children do not adequately

understand any of the state languages may continue to

teach in the English language. (My emphasis, Bis)

Certain flaws emerge immediately from the suggestions made above. In the first place,

we find that while some towns and schools will be able to carry out their educational

affairs with just one language, the administration of other towns and schools will be

saddled with the use of multiple languages. Moreover, while a category of children will

be exposed to their mother tongue right from the start of their educational life, another

category will have to be contented with the language of the erstwhile colonizer.

30

Simpson justifies the need to have English-speaking schools on the ground that it is

necessary to „prevent children whose mother tongues are state languages outside the

towns where their parents reside, from having to travel far to attend schools which use

their mother tongues‟. It is easy to see that Simpson proposal has been built into a

confederal framework where everybody carries their ethnic background with them

whenever they go in the country. Nothing in the psychology of language prevents a

child of, for instance, Urhobo parents but born and bred in Benin from learning

successfully through the medium of Edo.

Simpson‟s suggestion that English speaking schools be set up for children

whose languages are not among the designated state languages overlooks one important

fact about Nigeria namely that it is precisely the speakers of these “remote” languages

who have the least exposure to English. This then raises the question as to whether any

of the State languages will not be more suitable than English.

Another draw back in Simpson‟s proposal is that it saddles learners with very

many languages in their formative years. This will hardly leave enough room for some

other creative learning. Let us consider, for example, a child whose mother tongue is

not one of the state languages. This child provided she is not to neglect her own mother

tongue, there will have to learn five languages: her own mother tongue, at least one

State language, English, a language of the opposite geographical area and the adopted

national languages.

Simpson‟s proposal that children in the geographical South be made to learn a

language of the geographical north and vice versa is simply unacceptable. In the first

place, the motion of geographical north or south is not only nebulous, but lacks

constitutional status. Is Idoma in the geographical north or south? A more fundamental

critique, of course, is that it is a proposal which cannot but promote one language at the

expense of others. The fact is that when southern school authorities have to choose a

language of the geographical north no other language apart from Hausa will attract

serious attention, whereas northern school administrators will legitimately have a

choice between Igbo and Yoruba. This will automatically put Hausa ahead of other

major languages. This would amount to building the choice of a national language into

phase two, an issue which is actually dealt with in his phase three.

Simpson reserves the actual choice of a national language for phase three. Thus

phase comes about according to him, after years of the application of phase two and it

31

involves choosing “by Consensus or referendum” there is no logical link between phase

two and phase three, since the referendum on the national language can be conducted

without reference to that on “State languages”.

Simpson‟s proposal cannot but lead to a cul-de-sac, and the flaws which have

been highlighted suggest that “State languages” particularly in linguistically

heterogeneous states, can have no status in a national language policy. Rather, we need

to look at the language situation in Local Government Areas (LGA) if we are really out

to ensure that the majority of Nigeria children learn in their own mother tongue.

He concludes his proposal by making an excursion into the relative strength of

the three major languages in Nigeria, the three languages which according to him, could

seriously be considered in the search for a national language, to identify the language

which will most probably emerge as the national language. He, however, did not allow

his analytical excursion to take him very far before arriving at the conclusion that the

other major languages should give way to Hausa. As it is the case with all the other

proposals so far presented on the national language question, statistical considerations

constitute the basis of all the argumentations. As a matter of fact most of the reasons

adduced by Simpson to support his choice of Hausa can be reduced to the number of

people who speak Hausa either as a first language or as a second language. Thus his

choice of Hausa as the proposed national language is based on the perceived numerical

superiority of the language. Other factors which in Simpson‟s contention speak in

favour of Hausa are:

1. Since Hausa has relatively fewer dialects its learnability will be enhanced over

and above other major languages.

2. Hausa has a greater number of Nigerian speaker not of northern origin.

3. Hausa has greater influence outside Nigerian borders.

I am simply not aware that the number of dialects of a language is a function of

learnability. Although Simpson consider the Nigerian languages from the standpoint of

available literature and critical studies done on them, this criterion does not seem to

him to be of any crucial relevance, since he still goes for Hausa in spite of his own

claim that Yoruba has an edge over the two other major languages in this respect.

If the choice of a national language for a country as politically and culturally

complex as Nigeria were just that of determining the language which possesses

numerical superiority in terms of first and second language speakers, then we the

32

people of Nigeria would have sung the “nunc dimitis”, of English as our official

language a long time ago. However, the issue is not that straight forward and herein lies

the major flaw in Simpson‟s proposal, as well as other proposals put forward in a

similar vein. As a matter of fact it is correct to say that the question of numerical

superiority constitutes the most crucial criterion in Simpson‟s framework then we must

conclude that he has argued against himself apparently without knowing it. Simpson

supports his choice of Hausa with the claim that “Hausa has been MORE READILY

and more widely embraced by a large number of non-Hausa Nigerians from the four

corners of the Federation. (p. 14). We do not have to reject this claim before we can

argue against the choice or relative numerical superiority as a crucial factor in the

choice of a national language. The counter/argument is taken precisely from Simpson‟s

analysis. He says inter-alia:

“…This stems from the attitude of the northerner towards the Hausa

language. Very many northerners would refuse to use English even

when they know it …”

(P 13) (My emphasis B.S)

What we would like to ask is who prevents non-Hausa Nigerians from refusing

to use Hausa. “even when they know it”? Without realizing its implications for the

choice of national language, Simpson‟s observation shows that the attitudinal criterion

is more crucial than that of numerical superiority or learnability. Needless to say, the

attitudinal criterion is directly linked to socio-political factors. It is rather strange that

Simpson‟s proposal has nothing to say on the most crucial factors in the choice of a

national language, in spite of the fact that he did make reference to the „delicate nature‟

of choosing a national language. The step towards choosing a national language has to

be a cautious one, not because of any difficulty in determining numerical superiority or

ease of learnability but precisely because of socio-political factors. This issue will be

taken up in greater detail in my research.

Osaji (1979) In fairness to him it has got to be stated that his apparent

pessimism is probably a result of his exceptionally perceptive understanding of the

socio-political and cultural problems involved in the choice of a national language.

Much more than in Sampson‟s proposal, we find, in Osaji‟s analysis that greater

recognition has got to be accorded to attitudinal factors over and above a mere

consideration of a numerical superiority. He correctly analyzed Nigeria‟s situation as

33

being characterized by a “multiplicity of antagonistic great traditions. He goes further to

say:

…Since each of these great traditions is numerically and

ideologically strong enough to support separate and large

scale socio-cultural and administrative integrations, their

competition within a single polity makes for rather constant

internal tension and for inter-ethnic disunity.

The problem with Osaji‟s analysis is that he appears to see Nigeria‟s language situation

as a completely hopeless one. His analysis relies mainly on the Federal Government‟s

position on the language issue:

The Government is fully aware that the trend the world

over is to have a national language which is a means of

preserving the people‟s culture. Although the adoption of a

lingua France in Nigeria is a task which cannot be achieved

overnight, Government is of the view that a beginning

should be made as soon as possible and considers it to be in

the interest of national unity that each child should be

encouraged to learn one of three major languages in

Nigeria other than his own (vernacular).

The position of the Federal Government on the language issue will be subjected to

critical analysis. Needless to say, a critique of the Federal Government‟s position is also

to be seen as a critique of all other proposals presented within the same “Wazobia”

framework.

Osaji, who basically remains within the Wazobia framework, has technically

ruled out the possibility of Nigeria adopting an indigenous language as the national

language to be politically neutral for it to become a national language. He further

contends that there is no politically neutral indigenous language in the country. In spite

of this observation, he suggests a set of factors which according to him affect the choice

of an indigenous national language and which ought to be considered by the authorities.

these factors are:

a. Population of speakers, with age, occupation and class distribution.

34

b. Location: geographical, political and social boundaries.

c. Present status: any evidence of change in status e.g. decline, increase, age-shift,

geographical extension, etc.

d. Literature: oral and written tradition, use in educational institutions and in

political, religious and other organisations; mass media using the language, such

as newspapers, radio, television.

e. History of any specialized use of the language including education, history of

social and religious pressure groups, and history of any relation with other

languages of the area concerned.

f. economic strength: method of finance, state or private or national, staff

recruitment and training facilities, availability of teaching materials, foreign aid

and technical assistance requirements:

g. Administrative, commercial and mass media requirements in terms of cost for

changing language.

h. Adult education facilities, and literacy campaigns.

Osaji however, does not show exactly how crucial these factors are in the choice

of a national language. The most curious thing about his proposal is that he calls on us

to allow an ill-defined concept of the “spirit of Ramatism” (pp 172 – 173) to prevail so

that Hausa could be adopted as the national language after virtually arguing against the

possibility of the emergence of indigenous language as national language. OLAGOKE

(1982)

Olagoke‟s contribution, very much like the proposals already considered, is set

within the WAZOBIA framework. Typically, not all the proposals set within the

WAZOBIA framework are sufficiently convinced about the possibilities of the ultimate

victory of an indigenous language over English. The pessimistic streak encountered in

Osaji‟s analysis is also to be found in Olagoke‟s. According to Olagoke, English will

most likely remain Nigeria‟s common language “for many years to come” as “there is

no linguistic group in this country, however minor, that would like to see any language

prevail other than its own, and failing that, they will not allow any ethnic and political

prejudice may inhibit the selection of a national language. However what weakens his

argument is his apparent inability to situate the phenomenon of ethnic and political

prejudice, which characterizes contemporary neo-colonial Nigeria within the correct

historical and socio-economic context.

35

Olagoke who, according to the title of his paper, sets out to discuss the issue of

the quest for a national language for Nigeria, devotes a lot of time to questioning the

rationale behind the teaching of foreign languages in Nigerian schools, so much so, that

he is unable to come up with any substantial improvement on the Federal Government‟s

position on the language issue. What he calls the “best linguistic policy hardly goes

beyond what the Government itself considers a “beginning”. We find the crux of his

proposal in the following:

Sorry; for every post-primary student to master a major or

class one Nigeria language other than the mother tongue of

that is major or speakers of major languages. It means

learning one more, which ever is convenient or acceptable.

Children from the other linguistic groups would learn any

major language. If a firm foundation in the mother tongue

is first laid, it will be mastered in primary school and

continually reinforced throughout life. The major Nigerian

language chosen as a second Nigerian language would be

learned in secondary school along with English. The

additional burden of other European languages would not

apply, leaving the student free, for scientific and cultural

subjects.

I have quoted this passage in full to show exactly how much Olagoke has to say on

what his topic promises us, that is “choosing a national language for Nigeria”. How for

instance, does the fact that a Nigerian has acquired a second Nigeria language lead to

the emergence of a national language? And how are we to interpret “convenient or

acceptable” in the choice of a second Nigerian language in the Federal Republic? In

spite of the superficiality of Olagoke analysis I find his categorization of Nigerian

language quite useful. It, at least, renders a possible controversy on how to define a

minority language unnecessary. He has divided Nigerian – languages into four classes

on the basis of the number of speakers of the language.

Before concluding this critical review of existing proposals of the national

language issue, I will consider the most substantial arguments which inform the

Wazobia option. It is to be noted that the most important characteristic of the Wazobia

36

option is that it places the three major languages of Nigeria, i.e. Hausa, Igbo and

Yoruba on an equal footing, how belt on a higher pedestal than that of all other Nigeria

languages. There is no explicit reference to any of the three languages as the best

candidates for the status of the national language.

Traditional wisdom on the national language issue has come to regards Hausa,

Igbo and Yoruba, referred to as class one languages in Olagoke‟s framework, as the

only candidates which could be considered in the choice of a national Nigeria

languages. Simpson, for instance, would like to convince us that “the three major

Nigeria languages stands out as the OBVIOUS candidates for filling the position now

being, occupied by English, “pig (my emphasis B. S.) Let us now look at the arguments

which underlie such a position.

The most important argument put forward by the Wazobia school of thought has

to do with numerical considerations. The argument based on numerical considerations

cannot be more forcefully presented than the way Simpson presents it in the following:

(also on p. 9)

These three languages definitely account for more than half

of the Nigerian population, from the point of view of

mother-tongue usage. When we add the number of people

who speak at least one of them as second language, the

remaining percentage of the population may be less than

70%. Most of the other languages would each then cover

only a small percentage of the entire population of Nigeria

most often, less than 1%.

We are thus reminded that Wazobia speakers constitute over 80% of Nigerians. This,

from the point of view of numerical statistics, is incontrovertible. If the situation were

so straightforward the national language question would have been a non-issue, since

any country where about 80% of the population speak a particular language cannot be

said to have a language problem. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not find it difficult

to adopt Russia as national language since more than half the population speak the

language, similarly, if the former Northern Nigeria has been a sovereign state there

would have been no problem whatsoever in having Hausa as the national language of

that hypothetical country. The problem with those in the Wazobia school of thought

37

who are pushing the numerical superiority argument is that they are committing what

can be described as the fallacy of numbers. This fallacy of numbers lies in not

perceiving the crucial difference between “80% with three” and “80% with one”. They

have failed to see that Wazobia is only an imaginary language, that what we have on the

ground are three languages of what Osaji has very aptly referred to as “antagonistic

great traditions”. Or are we to believe that somebody in the WAZOBIA school is about

to conjure up a language out of these antagonisc great tradition?

The truth of the matter is that the Wazobia option is the best recipe for the

perpetuation of an imperialist tongue in a former belong a former colony. This is

particularly so because nobody has told us how to fill the theoretical and practical gap

between the three language status and the ultimate status of a national language. What it

all implies is that while the languages of the “antagonistic great traditions” continue to

have their say, English will continue to have its way.

The remaining arguments presented by this very influence school of thought

which can be considered substantial can been seen in the following observation taken

from Olagoke ( P. 201).

They (i.e. Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba) have been used in

education and mass media and posses relatively wide

bodies of literature. Then populations of speakers are large

enough to produce adequate numbers of teachers to instruct

the other linguistic groups.

It is undeniable that a Wazobia language has some initial advantages over a non a

Wazobia language. However, these initial advantages will be out weighed by the socio-

political considerations which tlilt in favour of non-Wazobia language. As a matter of

fact, the initial advantages of the Wazobia languages need not be overemphasized as no

Nigerian language, Wazobia or non Wazobia, has gone beyond the elementary stage

with regard to educational, legal and political needs. This implies that a lot of effort will

still be required from the government and the people of Nigeria to make any language

chosen adequately perform its functions as a national language. Even if we grant the

Wazobia languages are advanced with respect to educational needs, mass media and

literature, these initial advantages will constitute necessary but non-sufficient grounds

for a pre-eminent position, since the initial advantages are not eternal categories but

38

acquired in the course of history. As Swahili and particularly English have shown

today‟s inconsequential language can become a world language in the course of time,

given the right historical and political circumstances.

The weaker argument of the Wazobia option is that which claims that it will be

easier for the Wazobia language to produce an adequate number of teachers to teach

other linguistic groups. If the 80% of the Wazobia speakers include second language

speakers, there is no reason why second language non-wazobia speakers cannot teach

other linguistic groups. A rational language policy is not necessarily the quickest one.

In concluding this critique of the Wazobia option, I would like to draw attention

to some other problems which have not featured in the analysis so far considered. The

first of course is the anti-democratic nature of the Wazobia syndrome. It violates one

basic text of the corporate existence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Wazobia

syndrome reflected an extremely narrow perception of the cultural and political set-up

of our nation.

A more practical problem of the Wazobia option is that it is a veritable source of

disunity and discord in Nigeria. The point is this: If government says that “each child

should be encouraged to learn one of the three major languages in Nigeria other than his

own vernacular who is going to decide which other Nigeria languages the child learn?

The child‟s parents or the authorities of the child‟s State? If the latter are to make the

decision, how is the decision going to be made? What line of argument would, for

instance, like the authorities in Imo State in deciding whether the Aba child should

learn Hausa or Yoruba? Conversely, how will the Kano State authorities decides

between Igbo and Yoruba? Will a geographical zone with more ethnic minorities not

remain with “its own Wazobia” more than other geographical zones with less number of

ethnic minorities? Isn‟t the Wazobia option leading us along the path of ethnic ganging

up in a most dangerous manner? If the Wazobia syndrome is incapable of solving the

language problem of the country, it should at least refrain from further dividing our

country along ethnic lines. I strongly believe that the only chance of Nigeria having an

indigenous national language lies in adopting an appropriate non-Wazobia language as

the national language, with a policy attached to it, this brings about language policy in

education.

Wikipedia says many countries have a language policy designed to favour or

discourage the use of a particular language or set of languages. Although nations

39

historically have used language policies most often to promote one official language at

the expense of others, many countries now have polices designed to protect and

promote regional and ethnic language whose viability is threatened. Language policy as

is what a government does either officially through legislation, decisions or policy to

determine how languages are used, cultivate language skills needed to meet national

priorities or to establish the rights of individuals or groups to use and maintain

languages.

The preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in today‟s world is a major

concern to many scientists, artists, writers, politicians, leaders of linguistic

communities, and defenders of linguistic human rights. Up to one half of the 600

languages currently spoken in the world are estimated to be in danger of disappearing

during the 21st century. Many factors affect the existence and usage of any given

human language, including the size of the native speaking population, its use informal

communication, and the geographical dispersion and the socio-economic weight of the

speakers. National language policies can either mitigate or exacerbate the effects of

some of these factors.

The formulation of a policy

Crucial to language planning in the formulation of a policy. This formulation involves

the following general objectives:

i) Development: An examination of whether the policy contributes to the

development of the society in question.

ii) Democratization: An examination of whether the policy is favourable to the

creation of equal opportunity for members of the society.

iii) Unity: An examination of whether the policy is going to reinforce the unity of

the society in question.

iv) Foreign-relations: An examination of whether the policy could be an obstacle

to communication with the international community.

The political ideology of Nigeria can be seen in the light of the principles above.

This ideology is provided by the underlying assumption of its political constitution and

the allied derivative documents such as national development plans. In paragraph I of

NPE the country‟s ideology is identified by the following statements:

1) A free and democratic society

40

2) A just and egalitarian society

3) A united, strong and self reliant nation

4) A great and dynamic economy

5) A land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens.

Based on the national ideology above are the aims and objectives of education in

Nigeria stated in paragraph 5 as follows:

1) The inculcation of national consciousness and national unity

2) The inculcation of the right type of values and attitude for the survival of the

individual and the society

3) The training of the mind in the understanding of the world around

4) The acquisition of appropriate skills, abilities and competences both mental and

physical as equipment for the individual to live in and contribute to the

development of the society.

The N. P. E., will be assessed later in this research in terms of whether it fulfils

the aims and objectives above.

Requirements for a language policy: In formulating a language policy, five or six

major factors or dimensions are considered very useful. They are useful in

differentiating between language policy and accompanying developments that tend to

obtain where three different dimensions or decisions (see 6:3) have been reached.

The factors can be summarized as follows:

i. Perceived socio-cultural integration of the society in question. In other words,

there is the need to find out whether the society in question is highly integrated

in terms of having great traditions in common at the national levels. These

traditions may include, among others, history, religion, culture, literatures etc.

ii. There is the need for a selection of national language among the various

languages that are in use in the society. Such a decision may lead to the

assignment of different roles to these languages. In assigning functions the

government would consider the factor of political integration of the different

groups of people, that is nationalism.

iii. There is the need for adaptation of a language of wider communication (LWC).

This will involve a consideration of whether such a language will be permanent

41

national symbol or not, or a transitional language which can be used for modern

function, or a unifying language that could only be seen as a working language.

iv. Another factor that has to do with the concern of language planning is the issue

of selection of minor or major language, foreign or indigenous, etc. If a foreign

language is selected, do the users aim at endonormative (local norm)

standardization? If the modernization of the language tradition is to be done, it

is the modernization of one or several languages that would be pursued?

v. There is also the need to consider the goals of bilingualism or multilingual

within the society in which the policy has been designed. The issue that would

be considered are whether the local, regional or transitional language would be

upgraded to the languages of wider communication or function as the prime

languages, or whether to abandon all other indigenous language and make use of

the transitional LWC or a consideration of the regional languages to function as

national languages would be up graded to function as the prime languages.

vi. The consideration of the goal of biculturalism is necessarily important. The

decision has to be made as to whether to transfer the transitional language to the

language of wider communication thus leading to modernity or new integration,

or try to blend tradition with the modern spheres, that is, taking on the foreign

language in question and using it alongside some indigenous language as the

basis for fostering unity or integrating the bilingual/multilingual community.

From what we have mentioned above as the principles needed for the formulation

of effective language policy, it seems that the Nigeria language policy is not a standard

policy since it failed to meet with these principles mention above. In the opinion of

Emenajo (1998), it may be a misnomer to talk about language policy in Nigeria because

the nation does not have a de jure national language policy. Although he recognizes the

existence of a de facto policy, one that can be extrapolated from a number of different

but complementary government documents, Emenanjo laments that “…Nigeria does

not have a national policy on languages because she does not consider languages

important in the planning, sustenance, and overall development of the Nigerian polity --

- “The deliberate omission of language in both the mission statements of the National

Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) and the Vision Report, observes

Emenanjo, underscores the low of rating of language in the development paradigms of

post dependent Nigerian governments. As Agbedo (1999:2) notes… “Contrary to what

42

obtained in the Old Europe where the birth of a new nation witnessed a wholistic

approach to development programmes… the Nigerian nation like most ex-colonial

Black Africa nations failed to appreciate the immense potentials of indigenous

languages while articulating its national development programmes …” Nigeria had to

wait for almost two to elapse after independence before some attempts to formulate a

comprehensive language policy were made; yet the policies so far enunciated have been

evidently negligible compared to the language planning efforts of the newly

independent nations of Europe.

The policy statement concerning language policy in Nigeria is contained in the

Federal Government National Policy on Education enunciated in 1977 and revised in

1987 and 1995. Among other things, the multilingual language policy seems to accord

well with the logic of the Nigerian language situation described by Emenanjo (1998:4)

as „…a multilingual and multicultural mosaic with some 400 odd languages: 3

demulcents (Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba); 12 choralects, 3 exolects (English, French, and

Arabic of which, English is official), and the remaining other chibonalects or „local‟

small group languages …” Specific provisions of the policy recognize the special

position of English as an exoglossic official language; the primus inter pares position of

Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba as L1 and L2 and as potential indigenous lingua francas, the

equality of all ethnic groups and their languages and the use of all languages in the

nursery and „junior‟ primary school education as well as in adult education. Like any

well written document, the National language policy, notes Olafe (1990:51) is quite

beautiful on paper: it caters for English as a language of inter ethnic/international

communication, the major and minor languages in the states, and the multi-

ethnic/multilingual nature of the country. However, the policy has not yielded the

desired result largely due to what Ojo (1998) cited in Agbedo (1998:3) feels is “…the

yawning gap between policy formulation and policy implementation”. The problem of

policy implementation tends to constitute the crux of dialectical disputation among

scholars. To some, (cf Chumbow, 1990,Awoniyi, J.A (1982); Jubril, 1990) the

implementation problem stems largely from the obvious inconsistencies of the policy

while the other argument is that the trilingual policy is impracticable in a multilingual

Nigeria that has been trying unsuccessfully to stimulate a delicate balance between

inherently antagonistic ethnic nationalities.

43

Given the seeming intractable nature of Nigeria‟s language problems, a set of

proposals has been advanced concerning the adoption of a functional national language

policy. The proposals illustrate two distinct approaches multilingual and unilingual to

the problems. While the multilingual approach (cf Simpson, 1978; Osaji, 1979;

Olagoke, (1982) represents one variety of the attempt to streamline the current trilingual

policy, the unilingual approach represented by Sofunike 1990) rejects all the proposals

cast within the mould of Wazobia theoretical framework. There is also the status quo

approach which favours the retention of English as Nigerian‟s lingua franca. Perhaps it

was in recognition of the disparities that characterized the literature on solutions to

Nigeria‟s language problems that Bamgbose (1976) identified three policy options for

Nigeria. These include (i) the status quo approach which will retain English as a lingua

franca, (ii) the gradualist approach that involves planned multilingualism until one

language evolves as a lingua franca and (iii) the radical approach which calls for an

immediate policy decision in favour of a particular language, one that will be taught in

all States in addition to the major language of the states and English. Bamgbose went

further to posit that if the language of national integration is one which unites the

various ethnic nationalities as well as the elite and the masses, that language is yet to be

found in Nigeria and an essential prerequisite to finding it is a firm decision on one of

the three policy options.

Interestingly, the current timid and flat-footed national language policy is the

result of a policy decision already taken in favour of the status quo approach option.

These so called trilingual language policy which pretends to accord official status to a

number of indigenous languages and priority attention to their development has turned

out to be merely cosmetic and hypocritical as most Nigerian languages have hardly

survived the overbearing heat of the English language often regarded by the ignorant

ruling elite and policy makers as Nigeria‟s lingual franca par excellence. It may seem

reasonable to concede that Nigeria has not been lacking in growing statutory provisions

and institutional arrangements geared towards developing local languages. For instance,

the former NERC (Nigeria Education Research Council) now NERDC (Nigeria

Education Research Development Council) has produced curricular for the primary,

junior and senior secondary schools in Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba; Braille orthographies

in Hausa Igbo and Yoruba; and funded metalanguage projects in Hausa, Igbo and

Yoruba. The National Language Centre (now renamed Language Development Centre)

44

has equally produced four manuals of Nigerian orthographies covering twenty

languages, a Quadralingual dictionary on legislative terminology in Hausa, Igbo and

Yorba; harmonized L1 and L2 syllabuses for Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba in Colleges of

Education. The National Institute for Nigerian languages has also been established

presumably to train teachers in local languages and research into different aspects of

Nigerian languages. Although laudable, these measures, according to Essien (1998:10),

… have come too little too late … and therefore fall short of the tremendous and

sustained efforts, energies, and commitment that European governments put to develop

their own natural languages to cope with the linguistic needs of their own respective

societies …‟The foregoing‟ perhaps explains the unfortunate situation whereby English

of the country, one defined by Essien (1996) as “…a language in a multilingual setting

which, regardless of size, usually invests its speakers not only with a full panoply of

uses that signify a standard language but also with prestige, self-confidence and

power….”

The grave implications which the prevailing linguistic situation for the indigenous

languages and Nigeria‟s overall national development struggle have been variously

discussed (cf Agbedo, 1998a, b, 1999, Chumbow, 1990; Bamgbose, 1983; Elugbe,

1990, Simpson 1978; Sofunke, 1990; Essien, 1998). The essential strands of the

argument point some what gloomily to the fact that Nigeria‟s timid language policy and

the blind glorification of the English language by the ruling class have conspired to

undermine the local languages and rob them of their utilitarian values in the all

important national development drive. In this connection for instance, Agbedo (1998B)

examined the concept of exclusion and showed how the efficacity of language as an

instrument of exclusion has been used by the millieux diligent to exclude the vast

majority of Nigerians from participating in the overall national development process.

Given the maniacal tenacity with which the powerful minority in charge of the socio-

economic and political management of the nation holds on to the primacy of language,

Oyalaran (1990:27) laments that the ruling minority is devising newer ways of

marginalizing the non-literate majority better methods of stripping their language of all

values and of roles in disseminating to Nigerians requisite information about the affairs

of the nation.

In the light of the fact that he who controls language controls history and perhaps

destiny (cf Allen, 1976) and given the that English language is by all intents and

45

purposes “ a reinforcing agent of the British value and ways of life” (cf Essien, 1995b),

Agbedo (1999:5) enjoins Nigeria and other African nations where development is being

carried out in what Fishman (1968) refers to as „official exoglossic language to develop

with language(s)rooted in the socio-cultural heritage, tradition and collective

consciousness of the people as obtained in European, American, Australian and South

East Asia Nations. This is imperatives if African nations hope to cope with the

challenges of the new millennium.

46

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is organised under these headings:

3.1 Design of the Study

This research which is descriptive in nature which is based on multilingualism

in Nigeria and it implications for implementing the National Policy on Education. It

involves the study of a group of people or items considered to be representative of the

entire group/population.

3.2 Area of Study/Research Area

The question of a national language affects the whole nation. Because of that

Nigeria as a whole is suppose to be covered in this research, but because in the

secondary school, within the Nsukka Education Zone of Anambra State teachers in

those schools came from different ethnic groups and thereby speaks different

languages. That is why the research study was based on ten secondary schools within

the Nsukka Education Zone including the University Secondary School.

3.3 Sampling and Sampling Procedure

In carrying out this research, ten (10) secondary schools out of a total of twenty-

five (25) schools in the Nsukka Education zone were selected by a random sampling

technique.

The Ten Secondary Schools Are

1) University Secondary School, Nsukka.

2) Nsukka High School, Nsukka.

3) Community Secondary School, Itch.

4) Community Secondary School Ihe-Akpu Awka.

5) Girls Secondary School, Lejja.

6) Community Secondary School Obukpa

7) Shalom Academy Nsukka

47

8) Saint Cyprian Secondary School , Nsukka

9) Community Secondary School Ibagwa-Ani

10) Community Secondary School Alor-Uno

3.4 Instrument for Data Collection

In the ten secondary schools, 200 respondents were contacted and given a

questionnaire. In addition ten secondary schools randomly selected, twenty (20)

teachers per school, were also randomly selected to represent the entire teaching staff.

Table 1 number of entire populations

Schools No of teachers

1 20

2 20

3 20

4 20

5 20

6 20

7 20

8 20

9 20

10 20

48

The items are built on a four point rating scale.

A - Agree = 4

SA - Strongly agree = 3

D - Disagree = 2

SD - Strongly disagreed = 1

The value attached to the Questionnaire items helped in the analysis of the data

collected.

3.5 Method of Data Collection

The data was collected through questionnaire.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

The data collected would be analysed using the mean of the responses of the

respondents on each items in the questionnaire.

The cut off points for the mean value were determined. Items that attracted

mean scores from 2.50 and above were considered as positive while items with scores

of less than 2.50 were considered as negative.

Instrument for data collection is the questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to elicit responses from the respondents.

3.7 Validation of Instrument

The questionnaires were validated by a specialist in the department of linguistics

and Nigerian languages, and the project supervisor. All of them were from the

University of Nigeria, Nsukka

49

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

This chapter deals with the presentation and analysis of the data collected during

the research survey followed by the interpretation. The presentation will take the form

of tabulation followed by the analysis, explanation and interpretation of the data

collected from the questionnaire. Here the objectives of the study will be looked into

and the research questions answered.

The items are built on a four point rating scale.

SA = Strongly Agree = 4

A = Agree = 3

SD = Strongly Disagree = 2

D = Disagree = 1

The values attached to the response items helped in the analysis of the data

collected.

Table I(a) Teachers reaction to the merits of multilingualism, whether a

multilingual individual has access to world technology and

educational advancement.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 46 184

A = 3 31 93

SD = 2 2 4

D = 1 3 3

82 284 3.46

The above table shows that forty six of the respondents (teachers) strongly

agreed and thirty one agreed that a multilingual individual has access to world

technology and educational advancement. However two of the respondents strongly

disagreed with the same statement while three of the respondents disagreed.

50

Summatively, this reaction has a mean score of 3.46, which is above the cut-off mark of

2.5. Therefore, a multilingual individual has access to world technology and

educational advancement.

Table I(b) Information from teachers on whether multilingualism

facilitates interpersonal, ethnic and interracial communication.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 56 224

A = 3 19 57

SD = 2 2 4

D = 1 5 5

82 290 3.54

The table above shows that multilingualism facilitates interpersonal, ethnic and inter-

racial communication, as evidenced by the responses of fifty six (56) out of eighty two

respondents (strongly agreed) while nineteen (19) respondents agreed with the

statement. This attracted a mean score of 3.54 which is above the cut-off point.

Table 1(c) Responses of teachers to whether multilingualism enhances

faster thinking and reasoning.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 28 112

A = 3 23 69

SD = 2 13 26

D = 1 18 18

82 225 2.76

The table above has a mean score of 2.76, which is above the cut-off point of 2.5. This

shows a positive response that multilingualism enhances faster thinking and reasoning.

51

Table 2(a) Teachers’ response on whether multilingualism leads to dominance

of one language and a progressively decreasing efficiency in the

other languages.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 9 36

A = 3 29 87

SD = 2 12 24

D = 1 32 32

82 179 2.18

The above table shows that thirty eight (38_ respondents agreed to the statement while

forty four respondents disagreed. This shows that greater number of respondents

disagreed attracting a mean score of 2.18 below the cut-off point. Therefore

multilingualism does not lead to dominance of one language and a progressively

decreasing efficiency in the others.

Table 2(b) Whether Multilingualism Creates Problems in a Bilingual Setting

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 12 36

A = 3 31 93

SD = 2 11 22

D = 1 28 28

82 179 2.27

Table 2(b) Whether multilingualism create problems in a bilingual setting. The above

table shows that forty three (43) of the total number of respondents agreed that

multilingualism creates problems in a multilingual setting while thirty nine (39) of the

52

respondents disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.18 which is below the cut-off

point. Therefore, multilingualism does not create problem in a bilingual setting.

Table 2(c) Multilingualism can lead to the dearth of other languages.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 15 60

A = 3 18 54

SD = 2 15 30

D = 1 34 34

82 178 2.17

The table above shows the teachers‟ reaction whether multilingualism can lead to the

dearth of other languages. Forty nine (49) out of total number of respondents disagreed

while thirty three (33) teachers were of the opinion that multilingualism can lead to the

dearth of other languages. The table attracted a mean score of 1.91 implying that

multilingualism cannot lead to the dearth of other languages.

Table 3(a) Multilingualism is a Problem in Implementing the National Policy

on Education in Nigeria.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 50 220

A = 3 18 54

SD = 2 4 8

D = 1 10 10

82 292 3.56

The table above shows that sixty eight (68) out of a total number of eighty two teacher

respondents agreed that multilingualism is a problem in implementing the National

Policy on Education in Nigeria, while fourteen (14) of the respondents disagreed. The

53

table has a high mean score of 3.56 indicating that there is a problem in the

implementation of language policy in a multilingual Nigeria.

Table 3(b) Non-committal by government to provide textbooks and develop

orthographies as stated in the National Policy on Education.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 36 144

A = 3 37 111

SD = 2 4 8

D = 1 5 5

82 268 3.27

The table above shows that thirty six and thirty seven respondents strongly agreed and

agreed respectively, that government is not committed to providing textbooks and

developing orthographies to aid the implementation of language policy. Nine

respondents however disagreed. The table has a mean score of 3.27, which goes to

confirm the non-commitment by government to the provision of textbooks and

orthographies to aid the implementation of language policy.

Table 3(c) The implementation of the policy is hampered by the clause-

“subject to the availability of teachers”.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 23 62

A = 3 30 90

SD = 2 11 22

D = 1 18 18

82 222 2.70

The above table shows that fifty three of the teacher respondents agreed that the clause

“subject to the availability of teachers” hampers the implementation of policy while

54

twenty nine responding disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.70 which indicates

that the clause hampers the implementation.

Table 4 Multilingualism affects the education system in Nigeria.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 15 60

A = 3 29 87

SD = 2 11 22

D = 1 27 27

82 196 2.37

Table 4 above shows that forty four (44) teacher respondents agreed that

multilingualism affects the education system in Nigeria, while thirty eighty (38) of the

respondents disagreed. The table has a mean score of 2.34 which is below the cut-off

point. It follows therefore that multilingualism does not affect the education system in

Nigeria.

Table 5 Multilingualism poses a lot of problem in the Nigerian Education

system

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 15 60

A = 3 15 45

SD = 2 15 30

D = 1 37 37

82 272 2.09

The table above shows that thirty (30) respondents agreed that multilingualism poses a

lot of problem in the Nigeria education system while fifty two (52) of the respondents

55

disagreed with the statement. This response attracted a mean score of 2.09 which is

below the cut-off point. Thus multilingualism does not pose a lot of problem in

Nigerian Education system.

Table 6 The use of many languages in Nigeria makes it difficult to have a

language policy in Education

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 27 108

A = 3 30 90

SD = 2 16 32

D = 1 9 9

82 239 2.91

The above table shows that twenty seven (27) and thirty (30) respondents strongly

agreed and agreed respectively with the statement that the use of many languages in

Nigeria makes it difficult to have a language policy in Education. Twenty five (25) of

the respondents however disagreed to the statement. On the whole, the responses have a

mean score of 2.91 which confirms that the use of many languages makes it difficult to

have a language policy in Education.

Table 7 An indigenous language should be chosen as the official language in

Nigeria

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 19 76

A = 3 23 69

SD = 2 25 50

D = 1 15 15

82 210 (2.56)

56

The above table shows that forty two (42) respondents out of the total number of eighty

two agreed that an indigenous language should be chosen as the official language in

Nigeria, while forty (40) respondents disagreed with the choice of an indigenous

language as the official language in Nigeria. On the whole, the response attracted a

mean score of 2.56 thus accepting the choice of an indigenous language to be chosen as

an official language.

Table 8 The National Policy on Education is relevant in solving the

multilingual problem in Nigerian education.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 25 100

A = 3 35 105

SD = 2 10 20

D = 1 12 12

82 237 2.89

The above table shows that sixty (60) teacher respondents out of the total of eight two

(82) agreed that the National Policy on Education is relevant in solving the multilingual

problems in Nigerian education system. Twenty two (22) of the respondents however

disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 2.89 which confirms

that the national policy is relevant in solving the multilingual problems in Nigerian

Education system.

57

Table 9 National Policy on Education is silent over the multilingual

problems in Education.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 35 140

A = 3 38 114

SD = 2 6 12

D = 1 3 3

82 271 3.29

The table above shows that seventy three (73) teacher respondents out of the total of

eighty two were of the opinion that the National Policy on education is silent over the

multilingual problems in Education. Nine (9) teacher respondents however disagreed.

The table attracted a mean score of 3.29 which confirms in strong terms that the

National Policy is silent over the problems of multilingualism in Nigeria.

Table 10 Nigeria has no language policy

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 37 148

A = 3 30 90

SD = 2 9 18

D = 1 6 6

82 260 3.17

The above table shows that sixty seven (67) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

where of the opinion that Nigeria has no language policy. Fifteen (15) others disagreed

with the statement. The table has a mean score of 3.17 which is above the cut-off point.

This confirms that Nigeria has no language policy.

58

Table 11 A language policy is imperative for a multilingual country like

Nigeria.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 30 120

A = 3 27 81

SD = 2 15 30

D = 1 10 10

82 241 2.92

The above table shows that fifty seven (57) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that a language policy is imperative in a multilingual country like Nigeria

Twenty five (25) others disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score

of 2.93 confirming that a language policy is imperative in a multilingual country like

Nigeria.

Table 12 The content of the present National Policy on Education on

multilingualism is grossly inadequate.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 36 144

A = 3 30 90

SD = 2 10 20

D = 1 6 6

82 260 3.17

The table above shows that sixty six (66) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that the content of the National Policy on Education on Multilingualism is

grossly inadequate. Sixteen other however disagreed with the statement. The table has a

mean score of 3.17 which confirms that the content of the present National Policy on

Education on Multilingualism is grossly inadequate.

59

Table 13 The National Policy on Education has not fully addressed the

problems of multilingualism.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 34 136

A = 3 25 75

SD = 2 10 30

D = 1 13 13

82 254 3.09

The table shows that fifty nine (59) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents agreed

that the National Policy on Education has not fully addressed the problems of

multilingualism in Nigeria. Twenty three (23) other teacher respondents disagreed with

the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 3.09 which shows that the National

Policy on Education has not fully addressed the problems of multilingualism.

Table 14 The use of mother tongue aids learning and enhances academic

performance of students.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 26 104

A = 3 49 147

SD = 2 3 14

D = 1 4 11

82 246 3.36

The table above shows that seventy five (75) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that the use of mother tongue aids learning and enhances academic performance

of students. Eighteen (18) others disagreed with the statement. The reactions to the

above statement attracted a mean score of 3.36. This confirms that the use of mother

tongue aids learning and enhances the academic performance of students.

60

Table 15 Mother tongue is considered adequate as a medium of

instruction in Nigeria Education system

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 16 64

A = 3 32 69

SD = 2 12 24

D = 1 22 22

82 206 2.51

The above table shows that forty eight (48) out of eighty two (82) teacher

respondents agreed with the statement that mother tongue is considered adequately as a

medium of instruction in Nigeria Education system. Thirty four (34) others disagreed

with the statement. The table attracted a mean score of 2.51 and shows that mother

tongue is considered adequate as a medium of instruction in Nigeria education system.

Table 16 In early primary schools, mother tongue of our pupils are used as a

medium of instructions in our schools.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 25 100

A = 3 40 120

SD = 2 6 12

D = 1 11 11

82 243 2.96

The above table shows that sixty five (65) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that in early primary , mother tongue of our pupils are used as a medium of

instructions while seventeen others disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a

mean score of 2.96, confirming that in many cases mother tongue are used as a medium

of instruction in our school.

61

Table 17 Children learn better and easier when they are taught using their

mother tongue.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 33 132

A = 3 36 108

SD = 2 5 10

D = 1 8 8

82 258 3.14

The above table shows that sixty nine (69) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that children learn better when they are taught using their mother tongue.

Thirteen other respondents disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean

score of 3.14, showing in strong terms that children learn better and easier when taught

with the mother tongue.

Table 18 The National Policy on Education does not encourage

multilingualism

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 14 56

A = 3 18 54

SD = 2 16 32

D = 1 34 34

82 176 2.14

The above table shows that thirty two (32) out of eighty two(82) teacher respondents

agreed that the National Policy on Education does not encourage multilingualism.

Fifty(50) teacher respondents disagreed with this statement. The table attracted a mean

score of 2.14 which is below the cut-off point of 2.5. This shows that the National

policy on Education encourages multilingualism.

62

Table 19 National Policy on Education encourages the use of English as a

medium of instructions in schools.

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 33 132

A = 3 38 114

SD = 2 5 10

D = 1 6 6

82 262 3.19

The table above shows that seventy one (71) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that the National Policy on Education encourages the use of English as a

medium of instruction in schools. Eleven other respondents disagreed with the

statement. The table has a mean score of 3.19, which shows that the National Policy on

Education encourages the use of English as a medium of instruction in our schools.

Table 20 Multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 20 80

A = 3 19 57

SD = 2 26 52

D = 1 17 17

82 206 2.51

The table above shows that thirty nine (39) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria. Forty three other disagreed with

the idea. The table attracted a mean score of 2.51 which shows that multilingualism

breeds disunity in the country.

63

Table 21 The National Policy on Education encourages multilingualism as a

means of fostering unity in the country

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 20 80

A = 3 22 66

SD = 2 16 32

D = 1 24 24

82 202 2.46

The table above shows that forty two (42) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that the National Policy on Education encourages multilingualism as a means of

fostering unity in Nigeria. Forty (40) others disagreed with this statements. The table

attracted a mean score of 2.46, which shows that the National Policy on Education does

not encourage multilingualism as a means of fostering unity in the country.

Table 22 Freedom of association is more in a multilingual nation like

Nigeria

Teacher’s rating (X) Frequency (F) FX Mean X

SA = 4 10 40

A = 3 20 60

SD = 2 18 36

D = 1 34 34

82 170 2.07

The table above shows that thirty (30) out of eighty two (82) teacher respondents

agreed that freedom of association is more in a multilingual nation like Nigeria. Fifty

two (52) others however disagreed with the statement. The table attracted a mean score

of 2.07 showing that freedom of association is not more in a multilingual nation like

Nigeria.

64

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The thrust of this research is to identify the implication of language policy in a

multilingual country with special reference to the Nigerian situation. The research

examined the definitions of multilingualism and factors that encourage it. Four research

questions were formulated to guide the study.

Related literatures were reviewed under the following headings.

The concepts of multilingualism

Multilingual countries and how they encourage multilingualism

Multilingualism in Nigeria.

Language policy in multilingual countries.

Theories on multilingualism, language planning and policy

Empirical study on language planning and multilingualism.

In carrying out this research, ten (10) secondary schools out of a total of twenty

five (25) secondary schools in Nsukka Education zone were selected using a random

sampling technique. The instrument used for the study was the questionnaire. The data

collected were analyzed using the mean of the responses of the respondents on each

item in the questionnaire. The cutoff point for the mean value was determined. Items

that attracted mean scores of 2.50 and above were considered as positive while items

with scores of less than 2.50 were considered as negative.

The result show that there is no problem in the implementation of language

policy in a multilingual country like Nigeria.

The study identified that the use of mother tongue/indigenous language should

be chosen to enhance academic performance of students.

The study also revealed that freedom of association is not hampered by

multilingualism, as typified by the Nigerian situation.

CONCLUSION

Multilingual problems in the „geographical expression‟ called Nigeria pre dated

1914 when the Northern and southern protectorates were fused into one by the colonial

administrators. In fact, multilingualism has always been the norm in both protectorates.

The real problem in our view is the near absence of well articulated solutions, concrete

65

implementation strategies and the political will to meet the scope and nature of these

hydra headed sociolinguistic problems; hence the need to adopt a multilingual approach

in solving Nigeria‟s linguistic problems in public and social life.

Both national, subregional and regional interrelated needs summon political

leaders, linguistics, language planners, educators, etc to evolve a more vibrant and

articulate policy which, no doubt should be armed with political teeth in the field. Far

from being a plague, multilingualism in the country should in fact be seen as a source

of wealth and strength, which if properly harnessed and managed will act as a source of

synergy for a more effective, directed, guided as well as vibrant evolution of a modern,

economically viable and technologically developed nation.

Rather than resorting to an ad hoc approach to linguistic policy, the government

should be seen and heard to be more committed in the implementation of a more

vibrant and articulated language policy which is expected to usher the country into the

21st century. Nigeria should embark at once on a vigorous drive for the training of

professional interpreters and translators in European and Nigerian codes. In tune with

Ajulo (1990:18), It may be necessary to create national or regional schools of

translation and interpretation, a usual practice of multilingual countries, whose areas of

specialization should cover political, scientific, cultural, literature, technical, literary

and philosophical fields.

Armed with the academic and practical knowledge of what each linguistic code

entails, as well the technical art of translations, which would be acquired from

programmes run in the tertiary institutions. These disciples of nation-building should

embark on the translation into Nigerian codes of books on agriculture, politics,

technology, economy, philosophy and prose, poetry, drama written by Nigerians and

foreign authors, official documents, laws, edicts, constitutions and other texts of the

state and federal government as well as those of sub-regional and regional statutory

bodies such as ECOWAS and AU.

This will enables Nigerians to understand and follow government works in

either their own codes or those of their immediate environment.

In addition, Nigerians should be encouraged to write in their maternal codes

where they possess the linguistic ability. This means that printing and publishing

houses may need to re-adapt themselves to the changing tide of events in the country.

66

Linguistic and cultural barriers are partly responsible for the prejudices which

have constantly held back the realization of the lofty objectives and aims of the

founding fathers of ECOWAS and AU with regard to sub-regional and regional

integration. The problems are not insurmountable. North America, and Asia, National

governments are busy promoting regional development and integration despite

linguistic and cultural differences. New languages are being learned in the schools and

in adult learning centers and older people are encouraged to return to formal education.

The West African sub-region should wake from the deep slumber into which

she had fallen in almost all spheres of human endeavour. Like the legendary Reggae

singer, Robert Nestar Marley a.k.a. Bob Marley exhorted Africans when he sang

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds,

Nigerians and Africans should take their destiny in their hands combining their dual

heritage in finding solutions to the problems of national, subregional and regional

integration.

Irrespective of differences in political convictions, indignations and principles,

the primary and more permanent interests of our people should be close to our hearts. It

is in this light as well as other reasons adduced above that General Abacha‟s foresight

in declaring that „Nigeria will embark on a vigorous language programme that should

ensure that our people within the shortest possible time, become bilingual‟ deserves to

be applauded.

The Federal Government should provide funds for general implementation of

the language policy in Education n carefully worked out stages that can gradually

implemented and evaluated with minimum strain on government(s) dwindling financial

resources. This should involve giving due consideration to:

a. the production of texts books, readers, and other literacy materials and

b. the training of teachers in the use of mother tongue medium

In this respect, the curriculum of teacher‟s training colleges should be reviewed

to incorporate principles of the methodology of mother tongue education.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The government should be seen and heard to be more committed in the

implementation of a more vibrant and articulate policy which is expected to usher the

country into the twenty-first century. Nigeria should embark at once on a vigorous drive

67

for the training of professional interpreters and translators in European and Nigerian

codes. In tune with Ajulo (1990:18), it may be necessary to create national or regional

schools of translation and interpretation, a usual practice of multilingual countries,

whose areas of specialisation should cover political, scientific, cultural, literature,

technical, literary and philosophical fields.

Armed with the academic and practical knowledge of what each linguistic code

entails, as well the technical art of translation, which would be acquired from

programmes run in the tertiary institutions, these disciples of nation-building should

embark on the translation into Nigerian codes of books on agriculture, politics,

technology, economy, philosophy and prose, poetry, drama, written by Nigerians and

foreign authors, official documents, laws, edicts, constitutions, and other texts of the

State and Federal Governments as well as those of sub-regional and regional statutory

bodies such as ECOWAS and AU. This will enable Nigerians to understand and follow

government works in either their own codes or those of their immediate environments.

In addition, Nigerians should be encouraged to write in their material codes

where they possess the linguistic ability. This means that printing and publishing

houses may be needed to re-adapt themselves to the changing tide of events in the

country. Readership in diversified linguistic codes need not to be small if and when the

reading culture is systematically drummed home to Nigerians and cultivated. It is, in

fact, the usual practice of multilingual societies. In all spheres of life as well as in

subjects such as politics, economics, agriculture, history, geography, mathematics,

physics, chemistry, linguistics and foreign languages, books, work books, and

pedagogical materials should be written by Nigerians, either individually or

collectively, as a matter of educational policy. For the purpose of quality these books

should be edited by a competent body of experts with regard to ideas, theories

methodology and style as well as technical qualities such as binding and presentation.

These would be more easily understood by Nigerians. Such books according to

Ade-Ojo (1977:6), would be fed and nurtured by Nigerians‟ own experience while at

the same time responding to certain geo-cultural realities of our immediate neighbours.

For economic, political, cultural as well as geographical reasons, Nigeria and Nigerians

stand to gain in establishing cultural, sporting, social, business, educational and

professional relations not only with our immediate neighbours but also with all other

French – speaking African and European countries.

68

REFERENCES

Abdulazizi, M.H. (1991). Language in Education: A Comparative Study of the

Situation in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Somalia In O. Garcia (ed.) Bilingual

Education: Festschrift in Honour of Joshua A Fisherman (pp. 75-85).

Amsterdam Philadelphia John Benjamins.

Ade-ojo (1997) Bracing up for the new Nigeria bilingual orientation. Paper presented at

the Fourth F.C.T French Day Celebration, Abuja, Federal Capital

Territory (FCT)

Agbedo, C.U. (2001). Linguistic Variation and Change in Igbo. A Quantitative

Approach: A.C.E. Resources, Konsult Nsukka. Enugu: page 30-34.

Agbedo. C.U. (2007) Problems of Multilingual Nations. The Nigerian Perspectives.

A.C.E. Resources Consult. Nsukka Nigeria P 12 – 30.

Ajayi (1965) Christian Missions in Nigeria. Longman.

Ajulo E.B. (1990). Nigeria‟s Linguistics requirements in the 21st Century: Reflections

on Lingua franca, national/official languages in Nigeria. In Nigeria

Forum

Ajulo S.B. (1990). Reflections on Sections 51 and 91 of the 1979 Constitution, African

Affairs, Vol. 89, No. 357, Oct. 1990, pp. 511. See also his “The Nigeria

Language Policy in Constitutional and Administrative Perspective:

Theory and Practice in JAAS, 1995, pp. 162-180.

Akinasso (1989) One nation, four hundred languages. Unity and diversity in Nigeria‟s

Language policy, Language problems and Language Planning 13 pp.

133-146.

Akindele (1999) The Sociology and Politics of English in Nigeria: An Introduction. Ile

Ife Nigeria. By Obafemi Awolowo University Press Limited.

Akwanya, A.N. (2007). Semantics and Discourse: Theories of Meaning and Textual

Analysis.

Alexander. P. (1972). An Introduction to Languages and language in Africa. London,

Heinemann.

Allen, and perraut (1980) Analyzing Intention in utterances. Artificial intelligency.

15:143-178).

Allen, J. F. and Raymond P.C. (1980). Analyzing Intention in Utterances. Artificial

Intelligence 15: 143-178.

69

Amadu, A. (1994) Education for national development In A Mahadi, G.A. Kwanashie

and A.M. Yakubu (eds) Nigeria: The state of National and the Way

Forward (pp. 423-444) Kaduna: Arewa House.

Appel, R. and Muyeken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:

Edward Arnold.

August, D. and Hakuta, K. (Eds) (1997). Improving Schooling for Language Minority

Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C., National Academy

Press.

Austin, J. L. (1965). How to do things with words, Oxford university press, New York.

Awoniyi, J.A. (1982): The teaching of African languages. London: Hodder and

Stoughton.

Ayandele E.A. (1966) The Missionary Impact on modern Nigeria. London: Longman.

Ayorinde D. (1985) The new language policy in Nigeria: Its problems and its chances

of success. In N Wolfson and J. Manes (eds) Language of inequality.

Amsterdam: Mouton.

Bamgbose A, (1976) Mother Tongue Education: The West African Experience, Hodder

and Stoughton.

Bamgbose A. (1983) Language And Nation-Building. A public Enlightenment lecture

delivered at the Bendel University. Ekpoma, June 15. 1983.

Bamgbose, Ayo (1991). Language And The Nation: The Language Question in Sub-

Sahara Africa. Edinburgh: Edinbursh University Press.

Banjo, A. (1978). Language Policy in Nigeria, in Smock, D.R. and K. Beutsi Enchill

(eds.). The Search for National Integration in Africa. New York: Free

Press.

Barto, Andrew G., Steven J. Bradtke, and Satinder P. Singh (1995). Learning to Act

using Real-Time Dynamic Programming. Artificial Intelligence, 72(1-

2): 81-138.

Beetens Beardsmore, H. (1974). Development of the Compound Coordinate Distinction

in Bilingualism. Lingua 33, 123-127.

Bender, M & R.L. Copper (1969) „The production of between intelligibility, Mimeo

Addis Abuba Quoted in C.A. Ferguson (1972)

Bernhard, E.B. (2000). Second Language Reading as a Case Study of Reading

Scholarship in the 20th

Century. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.

Pearson and R. Barr (eds.) Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp.

791-811). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

70

Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical,

Empirical and Classroom Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bloomfield .L. (1953). Language. New York: Henry Holt Company.

Brann C.M. (1982) Afro-saxons and Agro-Romans; Language policies in Sub-Sharan

Africa paper submitted tot eh Congress of Sociology, Mexico, August.

Brann C.M. (1982) Multilingualism et Education au Nigeria. Quebec: Centre de

Recherche sur le Bilinguisme.

Brann C.M.B (1978) Multilunguisme et Education all Nigeria Quebec centre

Internatioanl de Recherche sur le Bilnguisme university laval (B.73).

Brennan, Susan E. (1990). Seeking and Providing Evidence for Mutual Understanding.

Ph. D thesis, Department of Psychology, Stanford University.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in

Language Usage.Place Cambridge University Press.

Bruce, Bertram (1975). Belief Systems and Language Understanding. Technical Report

A1-21, Bolt, Beranek and Newman.

Carletta, Jean C. (1992). Risk Taking and Recovery in Task-Oriented Dialogue. Ph.D.

Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Carrel, Devine & Eskey (1988) Interative approaches in second language reading. New

York: Cambridge university press.

Cawsey, Alison (1993) Planning interactive explanations International Journal of man-

machine studies, 38:169-199.

Chan, M.C. et al (1983). Input/Output Switch in Bilingual Code Switching. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research 12, 407-16.

Chumbow (1987) Towards language planning model for Africa Journal of west African

Languages XVII, 1. 15-22.

Chumbow B.S. (1990). The Place of Mother Tongue in the National Policy on

Education. In E.N. Emenanjo: Multilingualism, Minority Languages and

Language Policy in Nigeria. Agbor: Central Books Limited.

Clark Herbet H. and Catherine R. Marshall (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual

Knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag

editors, Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University

Press, Pages 10 – 63

71

Clark, Herbert H. and T.B. Carlson (1982). Speech Acts and Hearer‟s Beliefs. In Neil

V. Smith, editor, Mutual knowledge. Academic Press, New York, pages

1-37.

Clark, Herbert, H. and Catherine R. Marshall (1981). Definite reference and mutual

knowledge. In Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag.

Editors, Elements of Discourse understanding, Cambridge university

press.

Cobarrubias .J. (1983). Ethnical Issues in Status Planning. In Juan, Cobarrubias and

Joshau, A. Fisherman (eds) Progress in Language Planning.

International Perspectives: Berlin’s Mouton, 41-85.

Cohen, P. and Hector Levesque (1991). Teamwork. Nous, 25: 11-24.

Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essential of Psychological Testing (3rd

ed.) New York: Harper

& Row.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge, University Press.

Dally (1978). The indigenous scripts of West African and Surinam: their inspiration

and design. African lanauge studies: 156-197.

Degroot M.H. (1969) Optimal Statistical decission. New York: McGraw Hill

Ekenem (1972) The 1963 Nigeria census: A critical Appraisal: Benin: Ethiope

Publishing company.

Elugbe, B.O. (1990) “National language and National development: In E.N. Emenajo

(ed) (1990) pp. 10-19. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1977) National

policy on Education, Lagos: Federal Ministry of Information.

Emenanjo E.N. (1998) Towards a pragmatic language policy for Nigeria: Hindsight as

foresight in the Educational Domain A handout.

Essien O.E. (1996) Code-switching and code mixing in Nigeria: A study of the

phenomena among some ethnic groups. A paper presented at a

Departmental seminar. Department of Linguistics, University of Ghana,

Lagos.

Essien O.E. (1981) The problems of teaching West African Languages: The Ibibio

Dimension. The Nigerian Language Teacher: Vol-4 2:-5-11.

Fafunwa B. (1969) The importance of mother tongue as a medium of Instruction.

Nigerian Magazine No. 102 (Sept-Nov.). Lagos. Ministry of

Information.

72

Fikes, R.E. and Nils J. Nilsson (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of

theorem Providing to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence 2: 189-

208.

Fishman J.A. (1965) Who speaks what Language to whom and when? La Linguistique

page 26788

Fishman, J.A. et. All eds (1968). Language Problems of Developing Nations. New

York: John Wiley and sons Inc.

Fishman: J.A. (1968a) “Sociolinguistics and the Language problems of developing

countries” In Fishman et al (1968) on cit-pp.3-16.

Fishman, J.A. (1977). The Social Science Perspective, In Bilingual Education: Current

Perspectives. Social Science. Arlington, Va: Center for Applied

Linguistics.

Fishman, Joshua ed. (1974). Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton,

pp:79 - 102

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English as a Second Language Learners Cognitive Reading

Processes: A Review of Research in the United States. Review of

Educational Research,65, 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J. and Cummins, J. (1999). Bridging Disciplines to Critique a National

Research Agenda for Language Minority Children‟s Schooling.

Reading. Research Quarterly, 34, 378-390.

Fitzgerald, J. and Nobblit, G.W. (1999). About Hopes, Aspirations, and Uncertainty:

First Grade English Language Learners Emergent Reading. Journal of

Literacy Research,31, 133-182.

Garabaghi Ninou (1983). Statur des Langues et Langues d‟enseignement dans les &

tats members de l‟UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.

Garga, G.E (200) Bilingual Children‟s reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.

Pearson and R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp 813

- 834). Mahwab, N.J : Eribaum.

Garcia, G.E (2000). Bilingual Children‟s reading, In M.I. Kamil, P.M. Mosenthal, P.D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds), Hand book of reading research (volume 3, pp.

813-834). Mahwah, N.J. Eribaum.

Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitude and Motivation in Second Language

Learning. Rowley, Mass.

73

Grosz, Barbara J and Candace L. Sidner (1990). Plans for discourse. In Philip Cohen,

Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in communication.

The Mit press, Cambirdge, M.A, page 417-444.

Hansford K. et al (1976) An index of Nigeria language. Studies Nigeria Languages 5,

1.204.

Haugen, Einar (1974). The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hill, W. (1977-1978). Concerning Reading Theory. A reaction to carver‟s “Towards a

theory of comprehension and rauding” Reading Research Quarterly, 13,

64 - 91

Hovy, E. H. (1990). Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation. Artificial

Intelligence, 43(2): 153-197.

http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/degestglobal.html A Global Perspective on

Bilingualism and Bilingual Education (1999), G. Richard Tucker,

Carnegie Mellon University.

Ilolers, P. (1966). Interlingual Word Association. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behaviour 2,291-300.

John Lyons (1977). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. University of Edinburgh.

John Lyons (1981) Language and Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jubril M.M. (1990) “Minority Languages and Lingua Francas in Nigeria Education” in

Agbedo C.U. (ed) pp. 134-135.

Jyuotrinda (1968). Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistics and neuro-

psychological perspectives. Hillsdale, N. J. Erlbaum.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1965). Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Kirsten (1991): The lingustics Encyclopedia Edited by James M. Anderson, London

and New York.

Ki-zerbo, J. (1981). Methodology and African pre-History. In: J. Ki-zerbo (ed).

Geneeral History of Africa. Vol. I, p 5, London/Paris, James

Currey/UNESCO.

Kloss, H. (1968). Notes Concerning a Language-Nation Typology. In Fishman

Ferguson, and Das Gupta (1968).

Kolers P.A. (1966): Interlinqual word Association: Journal of verbal learning and

verbal Behaviour Vol 3, 291-300.

74

Krashen, S. (1981) Second language Acquisition and second language learning

(Pergamon press Oxford).

Latin, D.D. (1977), politics, language and Thought in Africa: the Somali. Chicago,

university of Chicago press.

Le Page, R.B. (1968). Problems to be faced in the Use of English as the Medium of

Instruction in Four West Indian Territories.

Lewis, David (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge M.A.

Litman, Diane. (1985). Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated

Approach for Understanding Dialogues. Technical Report 170,

University of Rochester.

Mamara, et al (1968). Language Switching in bilinguals as a Function of Stimulus and

Response Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology 78, 208-15.

Mamara, J. (1967). The Bilingual Linguistic Performance: A Psychological Overview.

Journal of Social Issues 23, 59-77.

Mamara, J. and Kushnir, S.C. (1971). Linguistics Independence of Bilinguals: The

Imput Switch. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour.

McRoy, Susan and Graeme Hirst (1995) The repair of speech act misunderstandings by

abductive inference. Computational Linquistics, 21 (4); 435-478.

Mitchell, 12, 81 Myles, F. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London, New

York, Sydney, Australia & Auckland. New Zealand: Arnold.

Mitchell, R, & Myles, F (1998), Second Language Learning theories: London, New

York, Sydney, Austtralia & Auckland. New Zealand: Arnold.

Noss, R.B. (1971). Politics and Language Police in Southeast Asia: Language Science.

Bloomington, Indiana, No. 16, pp. 25-32.

Oaran O.O. (1990) Language Marginalization and National Development in Nigeria. In

Agbedo 2007 (ed) pp. 186-187.

Ochoa, A. (1995). Language Polcy and social implications for addressing the bicultural

immmigrant experience in the united States. In A. Darder (Ed), Culture

and difference (pp. 227-253). West port, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Olagoke .D.O (1980) Multilingualism in Nigeria and Choice of a National language:

Paper presented at the First L.A.N. Conference, University of Ibadan.

Olagoke, D.O. (1982) Choosing a National language for Nigeria. Journal of the

linguistic Association of Nigeria No. 1: 197-206.

75

Omamor A.P. (1982) Towards Mother-tongue education: A case study of the Itsekiri

Language project. The Nigeria language Teacher 5. 1:1 - 10

Osaji, Debe (1979) Language survey in Nigeria, Quebec, International Centre for

Research in Bilingualism Publication 13 - 81.

Oyalaran O.O. (1990). Language Marginalization and National Development in

Nigeria. In Agbedo 2007 (ed) pp 186 – 187.

Paradis (1977) Bilingualism and Aphaisa. In Whitaker, H and Whitaker, H.A. (eds)

Studies in Neurolinguistics Vol. 3, 65-121.

Pedhazur, E.J. & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Designs, and Analysis: An

Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.

Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1939). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton.

Philip N. Anigbogu, M.B. Mba and Cecilia Eme (2001). Introduction to Linguistics.

Zik‟s Avenue Awka, Anambra State.

Pohl J. (1965). Bilingualism: In Revue Roumaine de Linquistique, 10, 343-349.

Pool, J. (1972). National Development and Language Diversity. In Fishman (1971-2,

Vol 2.)

Poth, Joseph. 1997a. L‟ amenagement linguistique en contexte Cducatif plurilingue

(Version Afrique). Schema directeur pour une reforme linguistique en

contexte scolaire. Collections Guides Pratiques Linguapax 1, Centre

International de Phonttique Appliquee, Universite de mons-Hainaut,

Mons. Pg 53

Power, Richard (1974). Computer Model of Conversation. Ph. D, thesis University of

Edinburgh.

Prince, Ellen F. (1981) “Toward a Taxonomy of Given New Infromation “in Peter cole,

editor, Cole, P. (ed) Radical Pragmatics: Academic press, pages 223 –

255.

Rubin (1968) National bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague

Sacks Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of

turn taking in conversation. Linguistics 50: 325-345.

Salisbury, R.F. (1962). Notes on Bilingualism and Linguistic Change in New Guinea,

Anthropological Linguistics 417): 1-13. In Pride and Holmes (1972).

Saro-Wiwa, K. (1994) The Constitutional conference and national Cohesion. In

Mahadi, G.A Kwanashie and A.M. Yak (eds) Nigeria: The State of the

National and the Way Forward (pp. 527-534). Kaduna: Arewa House.

76

Schelling, Thomas.C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University press,

Cambridge, M.A.

Schmidt, R. (1997) Latmos and language policy: The politics of culture. In C. Garcia

(ed), pursuing power: Latinos and the political system (pp. 343-367).

Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame press.

Searle, J.R. (1965) What is speech act? In M. Black, editor, philosophy in America.

Allen and Unwin, New York. Reprinted in John Searle, editor, The

Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press, 1971, pages 39-53.

Simire (2003). Developing and Promoting Multilingualism in Public Life and Society in

Nigeria. Vol. 16, No. 2pp 231-243.

Simire G.O. (1993). Etude sur la variabilite du pidgin Anglo-Nigerian: Le Temps, La

Modalite et l‟Aspect. These de Doctorate Universite de Nice-Sophia

Antipolis, Nice, Frang.

Simpson .E. (1978) Babel,: Perspectives for Nigeria Quebec International Centre for

Research on Bilingualism.

Sofunke, B. (1990) National language policy for Democratic Nigeria. In E.N.

Emenanjo (ed.) Agbor: Central Books Limited pp. 31-49.

Sorensen, A.P. (1971). Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American:

Anthropologist, 69: 670-840. In Pride and Holmes.

Tauli .V. (1974) The theory of Language planning. In J. Fishmand (eds) Advances in

language planning. The Itague: Mouton, pp: 49 – 67. Introduction to a

theory of language planning. Appsala

Tellefson. J.W. (1995) Power and Inequality in Language Education NY: Cambridge

University Press.

The New Zealand Edge: Heroes: Linguists: Harold Williams: www.nzedge.com

Trudgi P. (ed) (1978) Socio linguistics patterns in British English, London: Edward

Arnold.

Trudgi. P. (1983) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to language and society, rev. edn.

Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Valisministeerium: UKU MASING- Writer, theologian, philogist

Walker, Marilyan A., Janet E. Chan, and Stephen J. Whittaker (1997). Improvising

Linguistic style: Social and effective bases for agent personality. In

proceedings of the 1st conference on Automaous Agents, AGENTS 97,

pages 46-105.

77

Weinreich, Uriel (1974): Language contact: The Hague. Mouton

Wolff, Ekkehard (2000). Language and society. In: Bernd Heine and Derek Nurse

(Eds.) African languages – An Introduction, 317. Cambridge University

Press.

Yule G. (1995). The Study of Language. New York. Cambridge University Press.

78

APPENDIX

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND

NIGERIAN LANGUAGES

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MULTILINGUALISM IN NIGERIA: IMPLICATION

FOR IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION

Dear Respondents,

The researcher is a post graduate student of the department of linguistics and

Nigerian Languages, carrying out an investigation on the above topic.

Below are questions and statements that seek your views on the topic under

investigation. Please respond to them by ticking [ ] beside the option as they apply to

you.

Your responses will be held in absolute confidence and will be used only for the

purpose of this study.

Thanks, for your co-operation.

Yours Faithfully,

Eze Victoria U.

79

SECTION A

Please tick in the appropriate column

1. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Marital status: (a) Married [ ] (b) Single [ ]

(c) Widow/ widower [ ] (d) Divorced [ ]

3. Level of Education (a ) Secondary level [ ]

(b) Tertiary level [ ]

4. Place of residence in Nigeria………………………………………………

5. How many language do you speak one [ ] two [ ] more than one [ ]

6. If more than two, do you mix them in speech? Yes [ ] No [ ]

SECTION B

Tick [ ] in the column provided as may be appropriate to you

Key: A = Agree 3

SA = Strongly Agree 4

D = Disagree 1

SD = Strongly Disagree 2

S/No Question A SA D SD

1. These are the merits of multilingualism

(b) A multilingual/bilingual has access to the

world technology and educational

advancement

(c) It facilitates inter personal, ethnic and

interracial communication

(d) It enhances fast thinking and reasoning

80

2. The demerits of multilingualism are:

(a) It leads to dominance in one language

and a progressively decreasing

efficiently in the other languages.

(b) Creates some problems in learning in a

bilingual/multilingual setting.

(c) Multilingualism can lead to the death of

other languages.

3. Problems of implementing the National Policy on

Education in Multilingual Nigeria.

(a) Death of teacher in schools to teach the

agreed major languages in Nigeria.

(b) Non-committal by government to

provide text books and develop

orthographies as stated in the National

Policy on Education.

(c) The implication of the policy is

hampered by the clauses, “subject” to the

availability of teachers.

4. Multilingualism affects the Educational system in

Nigeria.

5. It poses a lot of problems in Nigerian Educational

system.

6. The use of many languages in the country makes it

difficult to have a language policy in education.

7. An indigenous language should be chosen as the

official language in Nigeria.

8. The National Policy on Education is relevant in

solving the multilingual problems in Nigeria on

Education.

9. The National policy is silent over the multilingual

problem in Nigeria Education.

81

10. Nigeria has no language policy.

11. A language policy is imperative for multilingual

country like Nigeria.

12. The content of the present National policy on

Education on multilingualism is grossly

inadequate.

13. The National policy on Education has not fully

addressed the problem of multilingualism.

14. The use of mother tongue aids learning and

enhances academic performance of students.

15. Mother tongue is considered adequate as a medium

of instruction in Nigeria Education system.

16. In early primary schools, mother tongue of our

pupils are used as a medium of instructions in our

schools.

17. The study of one Nigerian indigenous language as

a core subject at the senior level of our school

system affects the use of mother tongue as a

medium of instruction in our schools.

18. Children learn better and easier when they are

taught using their mother tongue.

19. The Nigeria Policy on Education does not

encourage multilingualism.

20. But it encourages the use of English as a medium

of instruction in schools.

21. Multilingualism breeds disunity in Nigeria.

22. The National Policy on Education encourages

multilingualism as a means of fostering unity in

the country.

23. Freedom of association is more in a multilingual

nation like Nigeria.