ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 7 ( 2018/1 ) |
LANGUAGE POLICY IN RUSSIA AND NIGERIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
KAYODE OMOTADE*, ADEOLA OLUWAFEMI**
Summary
From available literature, it has been established that there are situations whereby a country functions in one language while another functions in more than one language. These situations have amounted to what language experts refer to as mono-lingualism, bilingualism, or multilingualism. Social factors such as ethnicity, ethnic pluralism and conflicts have significant effects on determining the linguistic relations of human society. Our study thus brings into focus, the Russian linguistic society especially modern Russia, and the Nigerian society. The major elicitation instrument will be collection and discourse of materials on language policy and planning between the two countries. The two countries, that is, Modern Russia and Nigeria are purposively chosen because they are multiethnic, multi-plural, multiparty and multicultural linguistic societies. These assertions are based on the fact that many ethnic groups came together in their various stages of historical foundation and growth, thereby leading to many ethno - linguistic relations in the two societies. This paper investigates factors that relate to determining language functions among these two multi linguistic societies.
Key Words: Language policy, Russia, Nigeria, multilingualism, language in Education.
Introduction
As a starting off point, it is pertinent to
state that many countries function in more than one language.Meanwhile, primordial
and contemporary issues such as language conflicts, ethnicity and ethnic
conflicts have necessitated veritable academic efforts towards language planning
and policy. This germane fact has led
to a situation whereby various venerable efforts such as debates, academic and
political discourses are generated to determine the relations between languages
especially, in multilingual societies. It is also an established fact that
language planning and policy are predominant in multilingual societies, as opposed
to monolingual ones. It is then arguable that it takes a multilingual society
to devise the parameters in determining the various functions and recognitions
that should be accorded to their own various linguistics issues.
More
than five decades ago, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization ( UNESCO ) advocated and established that “children should receive
instruction in their native language in at least the early years of school.”
This advocacy, as a matter of fact, was upheld by UNESCO as a core principle of
its operations, but despite this position, it is still evidently common
globally to see a difference in relation to the language of home, and the
language of instruction in school. Although thousands of languages exist globally,
one can state the extents in which languages are diverse, while some are
endangered for several reasons. This could be as a result of language contact
in multilingual societies, where social factors such as politics, pluralism,
culture, colonization, annexation and domination have necessitated a
concentration of first-language speakers to make conscious or unconscious shift
to a more dominant one. This postulation therefore, is typical of many
colonized countries in Africa, like Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, South Africa,
among others, and countries that have in one way or the other been under the
hegemonic leadership of the former Soviet Union such as countries of the former
Eastern bloc.
Psycholinguistics, a growing and
vibrant branch in linguistics maintains that all human beings share some
psycholinguistic characteristics, meanwhile, language relations with respect to
acquisition and dispatching revolves round cultural and social structures.
Language (s) may be endangered or ultimately die over time to give room for
their use to be shifted to new ones. Language policies either implicit or
explicit can therefore cause an individual to gain fluency in one language or
more and at the same time lose the same
fluency. In sum, this research focuses on language policy in modern Russia and
Nigeria. The multicultural and complex
nature of Russia and Nigeria are examined, while aspects of similarities and
differences are also investigated. The
research findings will be of immense benefit to researchers, policy makers,
government and various stakeholders and the general reader. The research will
bridge the gap of comparative study in language policy and planning across the
Russo - Nigeria Atlantic divide.
Meanwhile, scholars like Wodak (2006), Romaine (2002), Heinz Kloss
(1969), Richard Baldauf (2005), among others, have espoused the veritable field
of language policy, but despite their various credible contributions, there is
still a dearth of comparative discourse of Russia and Nigeria’s language
policy.
Methodology
Data for the study were sourced from
primary and secondary sources and collected from documentations through
published and unpublished books, articles, journals, and seminar papers, among
others, and were content analyzed in relation to the scope of the study. Data
for the research are also derived through visiting, observing and discussing
the various policies that directly or indirectly have links with language use
and language attitude in the two societies concerned. Thus, the research is both
documentary and historical. It employs historical and archival methods to
relate the historical development of language policy in modern Russia and
Nigeria.
Theoretical
Framework
The goal of a theory of language policy is to
account for the regular choices made by individual speakers on the basis of
patterns established in the speech community or communities of which they are
members. One of such policy is to maintain the existing status of a recognized
variety, or more realistically, to resist a tendency of speakers of the variety
to shift to the use of another. The theoretical background of this research is
based on Ricento’s deployment of theory on language policy in his work
“Language policy: Theory and Practice - An Introduction” (2006). Ricento argued that, if theory should be viewed from
the angle of a set of rules and principles that explain a concept, we may say
that there is (are) no general theory to explain language policy. Hence,
instead of theorizing the concept, we should view or concentrate efforts at the
“domain of inquiry” that the language is functioning (Ricento, 2006: 12).
The domain of inquiry theory is deployed
in theorizing our research. The “domain” of the languages is therefore
discussed in relations to the respective policies made towards them in the
multicultural and multiethnic societies of Russia and Nigeria.
The
Role(s) of Language Policy in Society
Language policy play active roles in
domains like home, school, religion, work place and supra-national groupings,
i.e, the European Union,(EU) African Union,(AU), FIFA, Unesco, etc. Scholars
like Haugen (1959), Charles Ferguson (1968), Heinz Kloss (1969), Joan Rubin
(1971), and Richard Baldauf (2005), have expanded the field of language policy
and their works have promoted multilingual societies as major causative agents
of linguistic policy. While arguing on bilingualism, multilingualism and
bilingual education, scholars like E. Glyn Lewis (1981), Ayo Bamgbose (1994),
Bernard Spolsky (2007), among others, have also noted and adumbrated the
importance of the lingua franca in every society. Although the linguistic
situation of a country may be pluralistic as a result of many ethnic groups
constituting such a society like Russia and Nigeria, but, amidst these
plurality of languages, decisions are taken to assign the status of a lingua
franca to that one ( language ) which will always prevail in certain domains of
functioning that enhance general comprehensive communication when required. A
language that is assigned such status is
termed “a lingua franca”. Furthering the
discourse on language policy are scholars like; Schiffman (1996), McCarty
(2002), Spolsky (2004), Ricento (2006) who have also advocated that language
policy becomes more pronounced in multilingual societies. The importance of
language policy plans is captured by Suzanne Romaine (2002: 1-2) thus:
…fewer than 4
per cent of the world languages have any kind of official status in the
countries where they are spoken. The fact that most languages are unwritten, not
recognized officially, restricted to local community and home functions, and
spoken by very small groups of people reflects the balance of power in the
global linguistics market. Campaigns for official status and other forms of
legislation supporting majority languages often figure prominently in language
revitalization efforts, despite the generally negative advice offered by
experts on their efficacy.
From the above quotation, it is deducible that
language policy is a decision or principle of action adopted with regard to the
usage of language or languages by an individual or organization. From the perspective of Ruth Wodak (2006:
170), language policy deals with;
every public
influence on the communication radius of languages; the sum of those top-down
and bottom-up political initiatives through which a particular language or
languages is/are supported in their public validity, their functionality and
their dissemination.
It is worthy of mention that discussions
bordering on language policy and planning are generated around the world
frequently. These discussions and position/implimentation papers are either
made by the governments, that is, formally or by language policy experts,
scholars or community leaders, that is, informally. In a similar vein, language policy experts
have submitted that the decisions taken influence the right to use and maintain
languages, affect language status, and determine which languages are nurtured.
They have a major impact on the language vitality and, ultimately, on the
rights of the individual and consequentially, all societal contexts. One must
also add that language policy goes concurrently with language planning. On this note, Cooper (1989: 45) gave a
description of language planning when he posited that: ‘language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the
behaviour of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional
allocation of their language codes’.
Language Defined
It is apt to take on board some useful
definitions of language. Lyons (1981: 1) provides a critical clarification to
what language means through his philosophical question: “what is language?”
according to him, the question “what is
language?” is comparable with – and, some would say, hardly less profound than
– “what is life?”… it has more of a philosophical ring to it. Lyons submits
that languages are systems of symbols designed specifically to perform
communication purposes. It is also argued that the major preoccupation of
linguists is natural languages. And that, what the linguist is concerned about
in terms of enquiry is whether all natural languages have something in common
not shared by other systems of communication, human or non- human, such that it
is right to apply to each of them the word “language” and deny the application
of the term to other systems of communication (see Lyons, 1981).
In another breath, Hudson (2001: 22)
critically observed language from the perspective of varieties of language. In
this sense, the variety of language is defined as a set of linguistic items with similar social distribution. From
time to time, different language policies have been implemented in Russia and
Nigeria. Some researchers believe that it is important to use local languages
as a medium of instruction in the first years of primary schools, while others
find it difficult to use local languages as a medium of instruction in schools
( Owu-Ewie, 2006 ).
Language
is the system of communication in speech and writing that is used by people of
a particular country or area. Language is seen as a system of conventional
spoken, manual, or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members
of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. To many
scholars, the concept ‘language’ is viewed in various perspectives. That is
perhaps why Sapir, E (1921) argued that, language is a purely human and
non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means
of a system of voluntarily produced symbols. While language becomes necessary
for groups, Bloch, B and Trager, G (1942) substantiated that a language is a
system of arbitrary vocal symbols by which a social group cooperates.
From the perspective of
another school of thought, Chomsky, N (1957), a language is considered to be a
set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed
out of a finite set of elements. Language is majorly exhibited by humans, as
such, it involves some human body parts. This is further substantiated by Peng,
F.C.C (2005) as he argued that language is behaviour which utilizes body parts:
the vocal apparatus and the auditory system for oral languages; the brachial
apparatus and the visual system for sign language…. Such body parts are
controlled by none other than the brain for their functions. Meanwhile, Weiten,
W (2007), argues that a language consists of symbols that convey meaning, plus
rules for combining those symbols, that can be used to generate an infinite
variety of messages. We can also define language as a system of communication using
sounds or symbols that enable us to express our feelings, thoughts, ideas, and
experiences (Goldstein, E.B 2008).
Arising from the
different views of various scholars, one can draw a conclusion, or infer that
language cannot be isolated from man as it has been the major means of
communication in human society. This communication further makes it glaring to
observe that language goes beyond verbal communications to include sign
interaction, otherwise known as sign language.
As linguists argue and converge at the same point, all languages are
equal. Hence, the level of recognition accorded to a particular language
depends on the place of such language in a particular setting.
It is instructive to
note that, it was in the efforts to place language in societies that arose the
concept of language policy. The efforts towards language policy and planning
are most frequently associated with multi-culture and multilingual societies
where many languages co-exist. The problem of giving these languages respective
places within the society leads to language policy.
Language
policy: A Critique
A lot of discussions and debates have been
generated on language policy and planning in Russia. Prominent to the
discussion of language policy in Russia are the works of Yemelianova (2007), Razumovskaya
& Sokolovsky (2012), Alpatov (2014),
Zhemukhov & Akturk (2015), as
well as, Bowring & Borgoyakova (2016).
According
to Razumovskaya & Sokolovsky (2012: 927),
The
language policy can be defined as the total sum of the ideological principles
and practical measures directed to solve language problems in the society and
state frame. In accordance with its goals the language policy may have two main
variants: perspective ( language planning or language building in other terms) and
retrospective (language and speech culture).
The
efforts or decisions or principles of action tailored towards the usage of
language(s) in the linguistic societies are referred to as language policy.
This concept has been viewed by many scholars, as an area that demands urgent
attention with regards to expanding the coverage of socio-linguistics as an
academic discipline that deals with language use and language attitude.
According to Ricento (2006: 11),
language policy is viewed from the perspective of addressing social problems
that deal with language in the society and not just to display philosophical
prowess. He asserted that: “After all, LP
is not just an exercise in philosophical inquiry; it is interested in
addressing social problems which often involve language, to one degree or
another, and in proposing realistic remedies.”
From the above assertion, it could be
deduced that the primary goal of language policy is to proffer solutions to
problems that border on linguistic relations in the society. Hence, one can
ably state that there might have been no need for policy on language had it
been issues that deal with language use and attitudes have not arisen. Every
individual is a conductor of language policy in the society. The moment an
individual becomes a member of a society, he/she automatically becomes an
instrument of social factors that aid language policy either directly or
indirectly. The involvement of individuals in language policy process is
further substantiated by Thomas Ricento (2006: 21) thus:
when we begin to
think of language issues as personal rather than abstract and removed from
daily concerns, we quickly see how we all have a stake in language policies,
since they have a direct bearing on our place in society and what we might (or might
not) be able to achieve. Schools, the workplace, the neighborhood, families
all are sites where language policies determine or influence what
language(s) we will speak, whether the
language is ‘good/ acceptable’ or ‘bad/ unacceptable’ for particular purposes,
including careers, marriage, social advancement and so on.
Meanwhile, Nancy H. Hornberger (2006) in
her contribution “Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning” opines
that copious energy towards language policy and planning is engender due to the
noticeable coverage that languages such as English and other world-wide
recognized ones like; French, Russian, among others are covering especially in
non native and ethnic users’ domains. According to her:
The decade leading up to the turn of the
millennium brought a resurgence of interest in the field of language policy and
planning (LPP), fueled in large part by the imperious spread of English and
other global languages and, reciprocally, the alarming loss and endangerment of
indigenous and small language communities world-wide. (P24).
Hornberger argued further that the
pressing and demanding, as well as, tasking real-world language policy and
planning concern on unprecedented scale is language teaching and language
revitalization initiatives. While stating the link between language planning
and language policy in citation, she posited thus: “language planning… must be
linked to the critical evaluation of language policy: the former providing
standards of rationality and effectiveness, the later testing these ideas
against actual practice in order to promote the development of better… language
planning models. Such a field would be better described as language policy and
planning (LPP)”
In his unpublished Ph.D thesis titled
“Ethnic Politics in the USSR and Modern Russia” Omotade (2009: 158-160) argues that:
Language is the
strongest social instrument that unites people into ethnic groups. While
territory, religion, culture and economic interests play their important roles
in the formation of national identity, it is precisely the language that is
vital for expressing the idea of collectivity and defining the features of
psychological and spiritual likeness within the community of separate
individuals. Language is the most important component of spiritual and ethnic
identity of any people, a necessary prerequisite for its development and
existence. The pressures for national identity are most keenly felt in the
domain of language. Thus, it is not surprising that a linguistic policy is a
key element of the process of state-building…
Furthermore, Omotade, states that two
conflicting principles outlined the choice of official language, as upheld by
many scholars. These principles as he argued are “efficiency and fairness”. He
establishes that “a more effective and competent language policy officialises
fewer than all languages and is therefore unfair, while a fair policy
officialises everyone’s language and is therefore inefficient and impractical”
(Omotade, 2009:160-161).
The events of the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 that led to the formation of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics (USSR), made Soviet Russia a multinational state. The
fifteen constituent states had their respective languages; therefore,
linguistic challenges and agitations became contentious even from the inception
of the Soviet Union. Apart from this, it was discovered by Vladimir Lenin - the
protagonist and mastermind of the Bolshevik Revolution, that the vast number of
the Soviet populace was illiterate. This singular fact resulted to literacy
campaign in the outset of the formation of the USSR. As Omotade observed:
Against this
background of Bolshevik victory, the campaign of literacy was the first active
step they (the Revolutionaries) took towards altering the linguistic landscape
of the Sovetskaya Rossiya, that is
the (Soviet Union) and also to sway Obshchestvennoye
Mneniye (public opinion) and, in many more ways, made possible the radical
changes especially that manifested in the later years of the Bolshevik victory…
(p61)
Language policy in the Soviet Russia can
be argued to have a direct relation to literacy campaign during the Soviet era.
The fact that the Union was a multinational state with different ethnic
nationalities, the classes were taught in either Russian or the local language.
Initially, the literacy courses were three months long- this time was later
extended to between six and eight months.
( Omotade, 2009: 62). In tandem with language
policy in Russia was the Russification policies. During the era of Soviet
Russia, the Russification policies were greatly pronounced and widespread. It
thus, played vital roles in the ethnic and linguistic relations in Russia. To
buttress this, Omotade,(ibid), further substantiated that:
all official
business in the Soviet Union was conducted in Russia; technical secondary
education as well as higher education in technical, and often other, subjects
was switched to Russian; the percentage of primary and general secondary
schools with Russian as the language of instruction was growing, albeit slowly,
but steadily; while in schools with an indigenous language of instruction,
Russian language subsequently became an obligatory subject. P64
The Russification policy did not go well
with all the nations of the Soviet Union of course. From an ideological and
nationalistic view points, it was believed that the policy favoured the
Russians and the Russian language than the other ethnic nationalities within
the Soviet Union. This salient, but rather implicative factor amounted to what
afterwards aggravated the collapse of the Soviet Union, though scholars diverge
on this postulation. With the Russification policy, in the Soviet Union, the
Russian language assumed the position of the lingua franca, subjugating the
linguistic prominence of other nations’ languages within the Union.
In a similar vein, Odunuga (1994) in his
work “Language, Politics and Nationalism” argued thus;
… crisis that
have engulfed most of Eastern European countries since the popular revolution
of 1989 that swept away the communist system reveal that the political issues
of language, linguistic rights, cultural and national self determination were
not settled in all parts of Europe in the 19th century…. In the
Soviet Union, 15 sovereign nations have emerged and more are appearing with the
demands of nationalities that now want to assert their political as well as
socio- economic independence from the larger groups that for years submerged
them.
From Odunuga’s view, the politics of
language and linguistic rights cannot be segregated from nationalism. It is a
general phenomenon that an individual, to a great extent, holds his/ her
language in high esteem and accords relevance and importance to it. Therefore,
language policy becomes more difficult and complex in a situation whereby many
languages that could stand the standard of national language are contending
for the number one position. For
example, in the former Soviet Union, fifteen independent states merged to form
a single formidable Union, each of these states of course had its national
language before the amalgamation. In a situation whereby one was to be selected
to overhaul others as a lingua franca, and reduce others to other functions,
the societies of such would definitely battle with the tasking linguistic
policy. Omotade (2009) further established this as he argued that:
Federalism…
continued to ensure demand for a large native intelligentsia able to read and
speak the native language, this community of native speakers continued to grow
throughout this period and showed no signs of forgoing their native tongue for
Russian in spite of the social pressures to communicate in the lingual franca
of the state…. Consequently, the perennial language problem had been
exacerbated by the Kremlin’s intention to make Russian the official language of
the Soviet Union. P67
In a comparative study
of bilingual and multilingual societies like Russia and Nigeria, one cannot
but, discuss aspects of heterogeneity, whether based on linguistically distinct
clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, or states. For instance, it would have
become a useless effort to provide
bilingual education or even policies directed towards bilingual education and
relations in a community if the community is homogenous in all spheres as
discussed earlier: clans, tribes, nationalities, among others.
E.
Glyn Lewis (1981) in his book titled “Bilingualism and Bilingual Education”
recognized “linguistic” to be the most salient aspect of heterogeneity that is
sought to be accommodated or promoted by bilingual education. In consideration
of linguistic diversity in multinational,
multiethnic, multicultural and multiparty states like Nigeria and Russia, one
cannot but relate it with other instances of heterogeneity, because,
considering linguistic diversity void of other forms of heterogeneity will be
incomprehensive enough.
These aspects of
heterogeneity according to Lewis may be present in different combinations and
are usually associated in varying degrees with linguistic differences (see for
example, E. Glyn Lewis, 1981). Russia and Nigeria are multinational and
multiethnic societies and thus cannot be isolated from these “aspects of
heterogeneity”. When educating a child in bilingual education, Lewis aptly
warns that:
Educators must
take account of as many as possible of these linguistically associated
variables, because in a bilingual program we do not set out merely to teach two
languages but rather to educate a person who possesses or needs to possess two
languages. P5
The submission of Lewis thus, adds to
the robust literature on bilingualism and bilingual education that are always
the bane of complex societies like Nigeria and Russia, which have necessitated
linguistic or language policies to be made.
A major factor becomes
prominent when tracing the origin of linguistic diversity and the multi-plural
nature of both Russian and Nigerian societies. This factor is “colonization”. Giving
credence to this, Lewis (1981: 46) avers thus:
the…linguistic
and ethnic composition of the populations of the Soviet Union…is the product of
the conquest of some territories, the more or less pacific acquisition of
others, as well as colonization and massive migration, all acting on primordial
native groups and interacting with each other.
Colonization has been synthetically
associated to the Russian Empire. The empire conquered many other lands thereby
expanding the frontiers of Russia. As Lewis (1981: 47) argued further:
The story of
colonizing of the Russian empire belongs to the European tradition. It is true
that the Russian occupation of Siberia involved moving against small numbers of
very primitive peoples in a vast and comparatively empty space. But the Russian
empire had already been founded by following a different process. In the
sixteenth century peasant colonization of nationalities such as the Nogais,
Tatars, and other established nations occurred on the Volga, Don, and Dniester.
In the nineteenth century, the incorporation of the Caucasus and Turkestan brought
the Russians face to face with equally, if not in fact more advanced, Islamic
civilization.
Likewise in the case of
Nigeria, around the nineteenth century and prior to the twentieth century, the
various ethnic groups existed independently. The Old Oyo Empire, the
constituent subjects of the empires were of the same linguistic functioning.
And as such, the linguistic policy was of no need. Colonization, taking from
the scholarship proposition of Lewis, can be said to have amounted to be the
major factor among others, that have made the Nigerian society a multinational
and multicultural one merged together to exist as one independent geopolitical
entity, where many ethnic groups that have existed before were merged with each
still upholding to their roots with their local languages. As such, these
ethnic languages apart from struggling with one another, are still made to come
in contact with the colonial master’s language- English, which is,
as a result of some factors made to function on one hand in certain domains,
while the ethnic languages on the other hand, function in domains that are
subjugated to that of English.
Russia has always been a multinational
and polyglot empire Lewis (1981: 50)
maintains that:
it was not until
1552- 54, when Ivan IV conquered the Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, that the
seal was set on the transformation of the small Russian state into a
multinational, polyglot empire. With the acquisition of the North Caucasus in
the middle of the sixteenth century, the period of very extended colonization
rapidly got under way. For two centuries, until the time of Peter the Great in
the eighteenth century, Russia pushed northward to the province of Archangel,
eastwards into Siberia, and southward beyond the Caucasus.
Considering the extent of this expansion
as stated above, one will not but have the imaginative picturesque of the vast
landmass that such an expansion could have resulted into. The present day
Russia thus, cannot escape language policy because, as Lewis further noted,
they incorporated such linguistic groups as Nenetes, Komi, Permeans, Vogul, and
Ostiak, and later the more numerous Mordvin. Other linguistic and ethnic groups
like the Karelians and Estonians in the northwest, the Tatars, Finnic, and Chuvash
to the east, and the Lithuanians, Jews, Germans, and others on the Baltic
seaboard were incorporated by the Russians…to the territories of Central
Asia…the Uzbeks, Kirghiz, and Kazakhs, speaking traditionally important
languages, had long established themselves in the lands they have continued to
occupy. The North Caucasus, including Daghestan with its thirty- two distinct
linguistic groups, became a protectorate…and…Armenia annexed (Lewis, 1981:
50-51).
Language policy was a necessity in the USSR and,
with the inevitable disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, linguistic
pluralism is still a very strong component of the modern day Russia. Russian
bilingualism is a goal set by the government and is very emphatically a matter
of educational planning and school instruction. It should also be noted that
Russian has been a significant component of unplanned and fortuitous
bilingualism. Large numbers of citizenry who know a second language other than
Russian will often know Russian, which they have learned normally in a mixed
community or at school.
Language Policy in Nigeria
Danladi,
S. S (2013) in “Language Policy: Nigeria and the Role of English Language in
the 21st Century” presents a critical look into the field of
language policy.. He examines the role of English in Nigeria as a medium of
communication, political activities- social and academic guidance from its
historical perspective, and the duration of gradual transition to the present
status of bilingualism and its democratization of language in conformity with
national unification. The work portrays how English occupied an influential
role in the formation of the national expectations and integration of the
Nigerian nation through its “official language” status. The work also
highlights the transition from English monopoly to bilingualism in accordance
with indigenous demands for language change in educational policy that could be
the form in line with mother tongue languages. Furthermore, evaluation of the
current relationship between language shift and language death in another case
with the emergence of the Nigerian Pidgin English is examined. This brings us
to a cogent area of language policy relation in Nigeria. The position of the
Nigerian Pidgin English demands particular attention. Literature abounds in scholarly writings on the Nigerian
Pidgin English. Notably among these are the works of scholars like Egbokhare, F. O.
(2003), Elugbe, B. (1995), Elugbe, B. and Omamor, A. P. (1991), Akande, A. T.
and Salami, L. O. (2010), and Mafeni, B (1971).
On the concept of “Pidgin”, Danladi,
S.S. (2013) argued that a pidgin could be referred to as:
a new language
which develops in situations where speakers of varieties languages need to
communicate but do not share a common language. The vocabulary of a pidgin
comes mainly from one particular language (called the plexiform). An early
‘pre- pidgin’ is quite restricted in use and irregular in shape. However, the
latter ‘stable pidgin’ develops its own grammatical rules, which are quite
distinctive from those of the lexifier. Once a steady pidgin has emerged, it is
generally learned as a second language and used for communication among people
who speak different languages.
From this perspective, it means that the
concept of ‘pidgin’ could be developed based on any chosen language. There
could abound as well, various forms of Pidgin. For example, the English
language in Nigeria has been worked upon in such a way that we now have the
Nigerian Pidgin English version.
Danladi (ibid,:13)
argued further that the Nigerian Pidgin English basically uses English words mixed
into Yoruba, Benin, or Igbo grammar structures. And the Pidgin English
originally evolved from the need for the Missionaries, later British sailors,
to communicate with local merchants. However, today it is often used in
ethnically mixed urban areas like Lagos, Benin, Port harcourt, etc as a common form of communication among
people…. The question now is what does language policy in Nigeria hold for the
Nigerian Pidgin English? The position of the NPE will be discussed later. In a
general sense, what is upheld by Danladi is that the primary stage of language
policy is seeking to understand the languages available and planning the
importance of those selected to use for various functions.
Overview of Language Policy in
Russia and Nigeria
The
language policy in Russia and Nigeria has been necessitated due to the
multiethnic and multicultural nature of the two societies. As discussed
earlier, various factors have resulted to the multilingual nature of Russia
(see Lewis, 1981). Principally, the Russian Federation inherited the largest
portion of policies in relation to language use in the society from the Soviet
language policies. Before the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and
particularly, since the period of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the
formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922 the
language policy in Russia was basically towards the promotion of multiethnic
nationhood (Zhemukhov and Akturk, 2015). The Soviet Union’s language policy was
devised to promote regional languages at their various regions. Apart from the
regional languages, the Russian language was upheld as the lingua franca in
Russia. This therefore, made virtually all the people of Russia to function in
their respective regional languages and Russian. It was also observed that the
Soviet Union was the first modern state that institutionalized ethnic diversity
and to reverse centuries of ethnic discrimination. Zhemukhov and Akturk (2015:
36-37) argue that:
The Bolsheviks,
who eventually established the Soviet Union, sought to recognise, codify, and
institutionalize ethnic and linguistic diversity among their subject
populations, under first Lenin and then Stalin. In the all- Soviet census of
1926, almost two hundred ethnic categories were codified and counted
Significant
to the early Soviet policy was the
undisputable elevation and promotion of ethnic and linguistic
particularities and a principled stand against what Zhemukhov and Akturk call
“assimilation”, at least from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 to
the early 1930s, when many of the ethnic minority groups were accorded autonomy
and allegiance to their respective cultural belongings and language
functioning. Each ethnic language became the official, “titular” language of
its autonomous territory along side with strong and copious ethnic affirmative
action policies to build, nurture and promote devoutly Communist elite from
every ethnic group (Zhemukhov and Akturk, 2015). Alphabets were developed for
the languages and books, primers, and other materials were produced in them.
Russian language, being the language generally recognised as the official
language was learnt in schools as school subject along with the regional
languages. In the USSR, the language policy towards foreign languages as well,
had its variations with the respect to the language situation of the Soviet
Russia national territories (Razumovskaya and Sokolovsky, 2012). As argued
earlier, the Russian language functioned
in tandem with ethnic nationalities languages, the Soviet Russia
exemplifies a perfect stable bilingual in each autonomous region especially, it
was evidently pronounced between 1922 to 1930s when Lenin’s literary campaign
was observed to be the only machinery to free the Soviet populace from the
shackles of illiteracy. From the argument of (Razumovskaya and Sokolovsky,
2012: 198), the situation of perfect and stable bilingual is substantiated
thus:
in the republics
of the USSR the foreign languages were taught alongside with the Russian
language as the state language of the country, which was not the mother tongue
to the majority of the republics’ population. In the Ukraine Soviet Socialist
Republic, the traditional combination of the taught languages was: Ukraine
(native), Russian (state), English or other European language (foreign).
When considering the
native language teaching, there existed disparities in different autonomous
regions of the defunct USSR. To this end, Razumovskaya and Sokolovsky (2012:
931) opine that in the autonomous
territories we have got the stable bilingual situation (Tatar plus Russian). In
some territories the native language teaching is obligatory, in some –
optional.
Before the formation of
the USSR, especially, the periods before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,
Russia was under Tsars. It was then referred to as the Russian empire. The
periods 1721- 1917 marked remarkable turning point in the numerical growth of
Russia as various expansions were made under the Tsarist Russia. This
inevitably contributed to what made Russia a multiethnic society.
Significantly, the Russian empire displayed harsh policy in relation to the
divergent linguistic minorities. This harsh policy, as observed by some Russian
studies scholars especially Alpatov (2014), did not favour the very large
number of users of minority languages, thereby, hampered the development of
national self-consciousness. Not only that, religious tie was in relation to
maintaining linguistic functioning as some ethnic groups upheld their language
in line with their religion (see Yemelianova, 2007).
The success of the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 saw the minority languages through the lime light
in the efforts of Lenin’s principles and ideology. Hence, various strategies
were subsequently employed to consolidate Bolshevik power in the fledgling
Soviet Union and to build the foundations of a Communist society. One of the
most important of these was the language policy that the Soviets adopted in
dealing with the non-Russian nationalities.
Like in the Soviet system, the National Policy on
Education allows the use of more than one language in the Nigerian educational
system. Although, English later assumed the status of the language of
instruction from the fourth year of the primary school education, other
languages still function alongside the English language in the school system.
By implication, the policy intends to expose an average Nigerian child to be at
least three languages in the course of his or her education thereby making the
recipients of such system of education multilingual, multiliterate and multicultural
(Olagbaju, 2014). But a major setback in the Nigerian language policy
especially in education is lack of proper implementation. The policy in
practice looks more intent than practice. Some scholars in Nigerian language in
Education have as well, argued that such policy lacks comprehensiveness. For
example, Oyetade (2003: 107) submits that:
There has not been a comprehensive
language policy for Nigeria as a deliberate and planned exercise. Indeed,
language planning as an organized and systematic pursuit of solutions to
language problems has remained largely peripheral to the mainstream of national
planning. What can be regarded as our language policy came about in the context
of other more centrally defined national concerns, such as the development of a
National Policy on Education and the drafting of a Constitution for the
country. It is in connection with these two documents, i.e. the National Policy
on Education and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that we
can talk about language policy and planning in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, Olagbaju (2014) aligns with the
National Policy on Education. With that, we are made to believe that
Government appreciates the importance of language as a means of promoting
social interaction and national cohesion; and preserving cultures. Thus, in
comparison to Soviet Russia, every child shall learn the language of the
immediate environment. Furthermore, in the interest of national unity it is
expedient that every child shall be required to learn one of the three Nigerian
languages: Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. He also establishes the (b) aspect of
the policy statement above thus:
For smooth interaction with our
neighbours, it is desirable for every Nigerian to speak French. Accordingly,
French shall be the second official language in Nigeria and it shall be
compulsory in Primary and the Junior Secondary Schools but Non – vocational
elective at the Senior Secondary School. (P67)
The above position further buttresses the existence
of multilingual education of the Nigerian educational system.
The medium of instruction in the primary
school shall be the language of the environment for the first three years. During
this period, English shall be taught as a subject. From the fourth year,
English shall progressively be used as a medium of instruction and the language
of immediate environment and French shall be taught as subjects.( provision of
the NPE (2004), Section 4, Paragraph 19 (e) and (f) ( for example,see Olagbaju, 2014).
In contrast
to the Soviet Union where the policy on language was greatly pronounced and
implemented, language policy in Nigeria is more of a statement of intention
than practice. For example, the so called ‘private schools’ do not allow the
use of other languages either as the language of instruction or a school
subject apart from the English language in the school system (Olagbaju, 2014).
Therefore, Nigeria stands to learn lessons to learn from the Soviet Union’s
language policy. The Soviet education system addressed issues of linguistic and
cultural diversity within a separate structure of ‘national education’.
When looking into modern Russia, we can build our
arguments on the periods between 1991, when the Soviet Union disintegrated till
present time. Hence, the focus is pragmatically based on the Russian
Federation. Modern Russia’s education system mostly began to take shape at the
beginning of 1990s, and it inherited many educational structures of the Soviet
period. Its construction continued for a decade. From the beginning of the
2000s the dynamics of language education in Russia began to be determined by
preparations for a new educational reform.
The need for modernization was used as justification. It began through
systematic attempts by the Russian Ministry of Education to change federal and
regional educational policies and practices towards the recentralization of
power in Moscow (Zamyatin, 2012). Therefore, contemporary efforts have been
towards making Russia more or less Russian.
Conclusion
Russia
and Nigeria are very similar, taking into consideration of the multiethnic,
multicultural and multilingual disposition of the two countries. Language
policy which has spanned over decades in Russia, especially the early Soviet
language policy that gave substance to both Russian and other ethnic languages
is a prototype that multilingual countries like Nigeria can learn from. The
language policy on Education in Nigeria has not been well adhered to
especially, in private school systems where the students are prohibited from
speaking and learning their Mother Tongue (ethnic language or language of their
immediate environment) in schools, where such language is termed ‘vernacular’
other than English.
Bibliography
Akande, A. T. and Salami, L.O 2010. ‘Use and
Attitudes towards Nigerian Pidgin English among
Nigerian University Students’. In R. M. Millar (Eds) Marginal Dialects:
Scotland, Ireland Beyond. Aberdeen: Forum for Research on the languages of
Scotland and Ireland.
Alpatov, V. 2014. Yazykovaya politika v sovremennoi
Rossii i mire. (Language policy in the Russian federation and in the world) In
A. Bitkeyeva and V. Mikhalchenko (Eds.), Jazykovaya politika i jazykovye
konflikty v sovremennom mire: Doklady i soobsheniya Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii
(Language policy and language conflicts in the contemporary world: Papers and
communications of the International conference). Moscow. 80- 89.
Baldauf,
R. B. 2005. ‘Language Planning and
Policy Research: An Overview.’ In E. Hinkel (Ed), Handbook of Research in
Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bamgbose, A. 1973. Linguistics in a Developing
Country. Inaugural Lecture, University of Ibadan.
Bloch, B and Trager, G 1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Waverly Press.
Bowring, B and Borgoyakova, T .2016. Language Policy
and Language Education in Russia. Researechgate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309242877
pdf Retrived Feb, 5, 2017.
Chomsky, N 1957. Syntactic
Structures. Berlin. Mouton & Co.
Cooper,R.L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Danladi, S. S. 2013. Language Policy: Nigeria and
the Role of English Language in the 21st Century. European Scientific Journal. Vol 9. No.
17. 1- 21.
Egbokhare, F.O. 2003. ‘The story of a language:
Nigerian Pidgin English in spatiotemporal, social and linguistic context.’ In
P. L. Lucko and H. Wolf ( Eds). Studies
in African Varienties of English. Frankfurt.: Lang, 21- 40.
Elugbe, B and Omamor, A. P. 1991. Nigerian Pidgin: Background and Prospects.
Ibadan: Heinemann.
Elugbe, B. 1995. ‘Nigerian Pidgin: Problems and
Prospects.’ In A. Bamgbose, A. Banjo and A. Thomas (Eds), New Englishes: A West African Prospective. Ibadan: Mosuro
Fishman,
J.A, Ferguson, C & J. Das Gupta (eds.), (1968). Language problems of
developing nations New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Golstein, E. B 2008. (Eds). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday
Experience. Thomson Wadsworth.
Haugen, E. 1959. Planning for a Standard Language in
modern Norway. Anthropological
Linguistics. 1 (3): 8-21
Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Frameworks
and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In T. Ricento (Eds), An Introduction to Language Policy; Theory
and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hudson, AR. 2001. Sociolinguistics. United Kingdom.
Cambridge University Press.
Kloss,
H. 1969. Research Possibilities in Group Bilingualism: a report. Quebec
International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.
Lewis,
E. G. 1981. Bilingualism and Bilingual
Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lyons,
J. 1981. Language and Linguistics; An Introduction. Cambridge University
Press.
McCarty,
T.L. 2002. A Place to be Navajo: Rough
Rock and the Struggle for Self- Determination in Indigenous Schooling.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mafeni,
B. 1971. ‘Nigerian Pidgin’. In J. Spencer (Eds) The English Language in West Africa. London: Longman.
Odunuga,
S. 1994. Language, Politics and Nationalism. Inaugural Lecture, University of
Ibadan.
Olagbaju, O.O 2014. Multilingual
Education in Nigeria: Policy, Practice, Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Education and Practice Vol. 5
No. 6, 66-73
Omotade, O.O. 2009. Ethnic Politics in the USSR
and Modern Russia. Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis, University of Ibadan. Nigeria.
Owu-Ewie, C. 2006. The Language Policy of Education
in Ghana. A critical look at the English-Only Language Policyof Education. In
J, Mugane et al (Eds), Selected Proceedings
of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp.76-85).
Somunerwille, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Oyetade S. 2003 Language planning in a
multi-ethnic state: the majority/minority dichotomy in Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies 12(1):
105-117.
Peng, F.C.C 2005. Language in the Brain: Critical Assessments. London. Continuum.
Phillipson, R. 2006. Language Policy and Linguistic
Imperialism. In T. Ricento (Eds), An Introduction to Language Policy; Theory
and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Razumovskaya A. V and Sokolovsky, V.Y
2012. Modern Tendencies of Language Policyand Language Planning in Russia and
China: Comparative Study. Journal of Siberian Federal
University. Humanities & Social Sciences 7(5)927-934
Ricento, T. 2006. Theoretical Perspectives in
Language Policy. In T. Ricento (Eds), An
Introduction to Language Policy; Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Romaine, S. 2002. The Impact of Language Policy on
Endangered Languages. International
Journal on Multicultural Societies, Vol 4, No 2, pp 1-2
Rubin, J. 1971. Evaluation and Language Planning. In
J. Rubin and B. H. Jernueld (Eds) Can
Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing
Nations, pp217-252, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
Sapir, E. 1921. Language:
An Introduction to the study of speech. New York
Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge.
Smith, H. 1997. The
New Russians. Avon Books. Random House. New York. USA
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______
2005. Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Bilingualism. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
--------------
2007. Towards a Theory of Language Policy. Workin Papers in Educational Linguistics. 22/ 1: 1- 14
UNESCO 1953. The Use of Vernacular Languages in
Education. Monograph on Functional Education. VIII, Paris, United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Weiten, W. 2007. (Eds) Psychology: Themes and Variations. Thomson Wadsworth.
Wodak R. 2006. Linguistic Analyses in Language
Policies. In T. Ricento (Eds), An
Introduction to Language Policy; Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Yemelianova, G. 2007. The national identity of the
Volga Tatars at the turn of the 19th century: Tatarism, Turkism and
Islam. 16:4 Central Asian Survey, pp 543-572
Zamyatin, K.
2012. The Education Reform in Russia and its Impact on Teaching of the
Minority Languages: An Effect of Nation-Building? Journal on Ethnopolitics
and Minority Issues in Europe .Vol 11, No 1, 17–47.
Zhemukhov, S and Aktürk S2015. The Movement Toward a
Monolingual Nation in Russia: The Language Policy in the Circassian Republics
of the Northern Caucasus. Journal of
Caucasian Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 33-68
*Kayode Omotade - PhD., Department of European Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Oyo State
**Adeola Oluwafemi - MA, Department of European Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Oyo State e mail: korgifahd@gmail.com
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES