English is being used as the sole official language. Article 3(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of. Namibia (1990) as set out by the Namibian Government ...
Challenges facing the development of Namibian Languages By: Niklaas Johannes Fredericks (MA, University of the Western Cape) Abstract
Namibia is a medium-sized country with a population of just over one and a half million. With an area of 824,295 square Kilometres, with a population estimated at 1.4 million (Population and Housing Census, 2001), it is a vast country with the lowest population density in Africa. It has 26 languages, of which English is the official language. The African languages fall into seven main language groups, viz. Oshiwambo, Nama/Damara, Otjiherero, Kavango, the Caprivian languages (e.g Silozi, Khoi-san and Setswana). These languages are spoken by 87.8% of Namibia’s speakers, and three groups speaking ‘imposed languages, viz. Afrikaans, English and German (11.2%). All the indigenous languages are designated as national languages in the country’s language policy. However, Afrikaans is actively used as a lingua franca, particularly in the urban areas and the southern parts of the country. English is used in official circles. This situation leaves the great majority of Namibian African languages in relegation to rural and family domains. Consequently, developing languages with such low status presents major challenges. This discussion is going to critically examine the source and nature of these challenges. Introduction Namibia got its independence in 1990 after decades of wars of liberation led by Black Namibians. Since the country was put under the administration of South Africa by the League of Nations, it was subsequently run like a colony of South Africa. The apartheid laws promulgated in South Africa were also applied in Namibia (then South West-Africa). The minute white population was the only one catered for in development. Afrikaans was regarded as the official language of Namibia. The majority black population communities were confined to rural communities where they were regarded as source of cheap labour for the white farming communities. Work on Black Namibian languages was essentially the concern of missionaries who were busy converting the Black population to Christianity. Most of these African languages were not development, that is, they did not have orthography and literacy materials for them to be introduced in primary schools. Those that were developed, such as Nama-Damara and OshiWambo and OtjiHerero, were only strictly used in primary schools. Progression into secondary and higher education levels was done in Afrikaans. This
1
education also limited Black Namibians in their interaction with the region, as their world of communication in Afrikaans stopped within South Africa and Namibia. This language use situation favoured the development of Afrikaans as a lingua franca in Namibia. For the liberation movement, this was not an acceptable situation. This is the reason that at independence, when Namibia adopted English as an official language, it had the lowest knowledge of English among the official cadres. The problematic situation of Namibia language use policy is therefore socio-political and policy related. Namibia as a young nation, and faces socio-economic challenges in its development needs to also critically consider its priorities in social development. This paper will look into the various policy related issues that explain the challenges that African languages encounter in their development in Namibia. It will attempt to identify the nature of these challenges and the response that the government of the day gives to remedy them. The Language Policy At independence in 1990 Namibia presented one of the progressive constitutions in Africa. The Namibian constitution recognizes all these languages and the right for them to be used by their speakers in all social domains. The constitution also recognizes the right for speakers to learn in their mother tongue. However, in practice this liberal dispensation is of little effect since not all African languages in Namibia have been developed to be introduced in schools and in modern communication domains. Only those languages (Khoekhoegowab, Oshiwambo, Otjiherero, Silozi) that interested missionary activities have really functional uses in their communities. These are also the only languages that are currently catered for at the University of Namibia. The Government of Namibia has established the National Institute of Educational Development (NIED), which is the one that looks into issues of implementation of the language policy. However, the NIED focuses on curriculum issues and does not have adequate resources to tackle issues of language research and development. There is no other language body that looks specifically to this problem of lack of language development. This situation presents some challenges, first because missionary developments are limited to missionary work such as publication of religious material and their dissemination. Secondly, those languages that are not used by missionaries also do not seem to accede to be considered for use in education. For instance, at NIED there are only subject officers for OshiWambo, OthiHerero, Khoekhoegowab, and SiLozi. Other languages are not represented. Thirdly, NIED officers are not themselves trained linguists, but educational specialists so their interventions in language
2
development are limited to curriculum issues. Thirdly, missionary legacy has divided mutually intelligible languages (Oshikwanyama/Oshindonga), and this means that the development of African languages in education is still hampered by conflicting interests in orthography preferences and in school material publications. Fourthly, the University of Namibia has not fundamentally transformed the language development legacy of the missionary societies. Except for the reconceptualisation of the Nama-Damara as Khoekhoegowab, all other Africa languages are still construed on the basis of what missionary conceptualized. This can not make the university to meaningfully train linguists who can objectively describe and develop these languages. NIED thus remains the only language development agency. However, for these issues NIED cannot on its own competently tackle without a national language development agenda. The problems cited above clearly indicate that in Namibia there is lack of language use plannification policy which can guide language development and language promotion. In the absence of these policy instruments, it will mean that for Namibia African languages cannot meaningfully compete with English and Afrikaans in official and administrative contexts. The language policy which on paper looks to be the best one can hope for has little to provide for the many African languages that Namibia has. The paucity of the language policy is also in the way that in post-independent Namibia English is being used as the sole official language. Article 3(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia (1990) as set out by the Namibian Government states: That the official language shall be English (1990:3) It also permits “the use of language other than English for legislative, administrative and judicial purposes in regions or areas where such other language or languages are spoken by a substantial component of the population” (The Constitution 1990:3). Once English takes all these important national institutional communication domains, it means that the Government cannot put resources for any other language to compete with English. These accumulated short-comings means that that for African languages there is not much that they can hope to benefit from the current policy. Challenges facing the development of our languages. Development of languages with such low functional status is a serious challenge as we have seen from the preceding section. It is clear that African languages of Namibia are neglected by policy from the colonial and in the post-independence eras. The modern constitution of Namibia has no attended programmes that can ensure that languages are developed and empowered to intervene in modern
3
communication domains and this to uplift the socio-developmental status of the speakers. English was introduced for the expediencies of globalisation, but such choices result in the neglect of African languages. These languages still continue in the limited social domains which were defined by colonialism, and their orthographies are still characterized by competing preferences of missionary societies. To critically discuss these issues, I suggest the following sub-sections:
The symbolic language policy On paper the Namibian Constitution is one of the most progressive in Africa as it accords all Namibian languages national status and the right to development and promotion. However, as already indicated, the Constitution has turned out to be a symbolic dispensation in matters of language use and language rights. Batibo (2005) argues that although the Namibian government has instituted a supportive language policy that promotes all indigenous languages to national status, the policy has not materially affected the maintenance of these languages as it is seen as merely symbolic. No measure has been implemented to give such languages the utilitarian value that might be expected. Davids in chapter 3 of this book also comments about the lack of implementation of the national language policy when he said: The greatest problem experienced is the lack of implementation of the provision of this noble policy. For the country to effectively implement the constitutional dispensation, it has to establish appropriate and effective institutions which will break with the past practices and usher in objective programmes of language development. Education is only a consumer of such development, and cannot meaningful be the champion of them. Therefore, NIED is hamstrung by this situation of lack of language use plannification. This is also a major setback in language development. As the policy of the constitution is, it cannot afford any institution the means to develop Namibian languages. This lack of implementation means that the government will continue in its complacent position that the constitution accords all languages rights to development and to be used in schools, while in the actual fact, there is no way that languages can be empowered to accede to the constitutional stipulations. The country does not make the Constitution do what it says it can do for the Namibian languages communities. Considering article 19 of the constitution as cited by Maho 1998 that ‘every person shall be entitled to enjoy, practice, maintain and promote any culture, language, tradition, or religion’. The question is:
4
How successful has the constitution been in doing this? People are still not able to use their languages in functional social communication domains, especially within government institutions. The net effect of this situation is explained in Fredericks (2010:71) where language choice data of grade 10 learners were arranged into an implicational scale. What is clear from this scale is that with interlocutors’ teachers, police, Doctors etc, those known to be government institutions’ people mostly used Afrikaans and not Nama, the dominant language in the Karas region. Twenty years of independence has not yet provided Namibian African languages speakers with confidence and courage to use their languages. It is our conviction that the national language policy is not only symbolic and has not been afforded mechanisms to be effectively implemented. Without these institutional mechanisms there is no engine for dedicated African languages development in Namibia. It is also evident that the language policies at some schools are also suffering from this illness of non-implementation. When parents and learners know that their languages are not going beyond primary school, they cannot apply their hearts and energies in acquiring them for use in higher functional social domains. Those languages such as English and Afrikaans then become priorities in teaching and learning, and all the national language learning resources will then go to those languages that are highly subscribed. It is important that if the constitution proposes a policy, for it to be successfully implemented, it has to be accompanied by relevant frameworks and mechanisms. The Work on Non-Governmental Organisations The work of non-governmental organization has been associated with the advocacy for San communities (Khwe dan, Ju|’hoan, !Xoon, etc). The Working Group Indigenous Minorities in Southern African has been the one actively leading the development and promotion of these neglected languages. Lack of appropriate linguistic work means that such groups are limited in their language development interventions. Without subject officers at the NIED who could work with them, it also means that their advocacy cannot meaningfully engage any educational development for these communities. The reliance on foreign expertise in articulation of community mobilization and cultural revival means that these communities do not themselves get into effective participation and implementation of developments that other language groups are enjoying. The only non-governmental organization that has effectively addressed issues of language development is the Centre for Advance Studies of African Society (CASAS). CASAS has worked with linguists to develop orthographies for Khoe and San and Bantu languages of Namibia (cf
5
Namaseb et al, 2008; Wakumelo-Nkolola et al.., 2008). The importance of this development of CASAS is that it engaged the Ministry of Education and NIED and the orthographies can now be implemented in the development of hitherto neglected languages of Namibia. However, linguists will be critical in the implementation of these orthographies because NIED has only capacity to design syllabuses and the plan the curriculum.
Curriculum and language development at NIED The National Institute for Educational Development (NIED) 1 exists to design the national curriculum and to implement the national education policy. The division of curriculum and language development at NIED is responsible for developing the curriculum and assessment system, and new syllabi for individual subjects. As such NIED does not have the capacity to spearhead descriptive linguistic works for implementation in language teaching. It has no such capacity and it would not be its strict mandate. However, much of the laudable language development activities such as literacy material development have been undertaken by NIED. Also, since NIED can only undertake material development on only those languages that already have developed orthographies, it means that even in the present situation, many of Namibia’s African languages are not catered for. Even as CASAS has now provided orthographies there are no subject officers for many of these languages. The language subdivisions at NIED will only continue focusing on ensuring that syllabi and teaching material are available for all the languages that have been developed and only those that have trained officers. This is a very difficult situation, and to resolve it needs a lot of national commitment and more resources in training and capacity building in language linguistic development. NIED has not also integrated in its operation the activities of community associations and as it has been indicated non-governmental organizations, such as CASAS, have only been taken on board. The situation as it is means that there is no response to the needs of learners in the diversity of Namibian languages.
The multiplicity of Namibian Languages As noted by Batibo 2005, Namibia is a medium sized country with a population of just over one and a half million. Hence, it has 26 languages, of which English and Afrikaans are the official languages with 9 other indigenous languages. Without appropriate policy mechanisms to operationalise the
1
NIED website
6
constitutional provisions there is no effective management of Namibian languages as a resource for national development. Language multiplicity and diversity is therefore seen as a problem and this explains the status quo – being content with colonial designation of language use domain for African languages; catering only for those languages whose orthographies were developed by missionaries; and training teachers only for those languages. AS such no capacity building for African languages development and implementation in education is in place. The multiplicity of the languages without appropriate policy to cater for their development makes it difficult for any kind of constitutional provision implementation to be under taken because of the manor challenges such as lack of expertise and other resources. Even the Government seems to be daunted by these challenges. But is the lack of response to these problems which is not appropriate, and which suggests that the Government is content or complacent with the status quo. A look perspective in language development needs to be put in place. First it must be clear that not all missionary developments were appropriate. Some languages of northern Namibia (cf. Mbenzi in this book) have conflicting orthographies and this has given the impression that there are many languages yet most of them belong in clusters. If their orthographies could be harmonized, they can share common developments. This situation has been tackled by Prah (2003) and CASAS whose research reveal that 85% of Africans speak no more than 12-15core languages (Clusters of mutually intelligible speech forms, dialects of the same language). The argument here is that one way to address the multiplicity of the languages is to capitalize on the mutual intelligibility of the languages and group them into clusters, and to use such resources as common orthographies to develop these languages. We can of course use this kind of argument to develop our languages in Namibia. Many languages all over the world have been developed through harmonization and the social benefits of such developments are real – enhanced promotion of languages in education, communication, and intervention in modernity. In certain social situations/regions language speakers are so minute that it is economically not viable to cater for their dialectal rights in education and in certain social development programs exercise of such rights has no developmental benefits. Responding to Language Development challenges Languages are important in operationalising culture. Languages are the only means by which we can meaningfully enjoy our cultures and our ethnic identity. Prah (1995) states that language is the dominant feature in any culture, and more than any other aspect of culture it is in language that whole cultural heritage of any people is registered and catalogued. In this regard our languages are
7
cultural and communication resources in our national development. Namibia would do well by forging ahead with the development that CASAS has undertaken in the production of harmonized orthographies for Namibian languages. Thus, the government must put in place language use policies and programmes which could facilitate the development and promotion of all Namibian languages at regional and national levels. Some of the most obvious implementation processes are: 1. Language research and development Developing/modernizing orthographies. Developing literacy and educational materials. (In this book chapter 3, Davids cited lack of lexicographical units as one of the drawbacks for language development as this leads to a lack of subject related terminology). Train Linguists to deal with language issues in the country. 2. Language in education Mother tongue as a learning right especially at early stages of learning. 3. Language in Social Media Radio/TV all languages should feature in National programs. Official text/ written information: all languages should be used. 4. Parliament: Should afford members to use their languages. Language in education must be meaningful, that is, languages should contribute to learning and to the acquisition of useful knowledge in development. These language use domains and their plannification can make Namibia to fully exercise the democratic rights of its people. This will also ensure that no Namibian language dies in this modern age. When languages are allowed in functional social domains they become living instruments for a living culture and a nation. Chiatoh (2001) developed a diagram of collective ownership also cited in Fredericks (2010). As we are faced by this challenge of developing our languages as a way of nation building, I once again propose the ownership style demonstrated by the diagram bellow.
8
Language development and promotion
Local community
Private initiative
Public initiative
Initiative
-Traditional Leadership -Specialised institutions -Ministries -Elite groups
-Religious institutions
-Local government
-Social groups
-Development NGOs
(Councils)
Sustainable language promotion 1) Local community initiative is and should be recognised as the finality of any meaningful language planning enterprise. All efforts at language planning should also aim at empowering the local community to take personal initiative and to support and manage its development over time. 2) Private input should consist in encouraging and supporting communities to continually participate in the process within a global national perspective. 3) Public institutions have the responsibility of catering for public interest and for ensuring and safeguarding the common good. As such, they should assume ownership of supporting and overseeing the effective implementation of programmes through policies and resources that empower local communities, competent institutions and private bodies as full stakeholders in policy elaboration and implementation. The following expected outcomes of the language and literacy project are relevant to the development of our languages (Fredericks, 2010):
New teaching and learning materials for literacy development in our African languages. Teacher development programmes aimed at helping teachers realize the link between subject knowledge and the language in which that knowledge is delivered. Community involvement in school literacy activities by creating and piloting programmes that link school knowledge to practical application at home.
9
Literate pupils at the end of primary education, who can use the education gained to improve their standard of living. Better access to subject knowledge because of increased language competence. Community use of knowledge generated in schools. It is time for Namibia to critically look into implementation issues and into the practicality instead of the symbolic presentation of its social development. Without a clearly thought out programme for language use and development, many of Namibia’s languages will be lost. When languages are lost, the culture of the people is lost. In is pitiful situation, Namibia will have a population that has nothing much to show of its African culture or identity. Conclusion This paper has identified various issues that present challenges in the development of Namibian languages. For a long time these issues have been overlooked but Government policies have been not critical in the way they viewed language development. In such a situation, issues of implementation have been misconstrued, and the results are that independent Namibia has not moved away from colonial linguistic dispensation. It is clear also that even with the best of constitutional provisions, without sound and effective programmes to implement developments nothing will change, and languages will die regardless. All the indigenous languages are important resources for social development, and if they are designated as national languages they must be accorded that role in a effective and meaningful way. Namibia’s language policy must reflect its demography and the need to uplift the rural communities so that they also participate in national development through their languages. Otherwise Afrikaans and English will take all the roles in national affairs. However, it is the contention made in this discussion that when that happens, Namibia will lose its African nation’s character.
10
References Batibo, H. M. 2005. Language decline and death in Africa: Causes, consequences, and challenges. Clevedon: multilingual matters. Fredericks, N. J. 2010. Language shift and revitalization: A sociolinguistic approach to the revitalization of the Nama language in Keetmanshoop (Namibia). MA Dissertation, University of the Western Cape. Cape Town Chiatoh, A.B 2001. The Career Supervisor and Mother tongue Education Generalisation in Cameroon. AJAL N 03, CLA Maho, J, F. 1998. Few people, Many languages: The languages of Namibia. Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan Publishers (Pty) Ltd. Namaseb, Levi and others 2008. The Standard Unified Orthography for Khoe and San Langaues of Soutehrn Africa. CASAS Monograph Series No. 232. Prah, K. 2003. Going native: Language of instruction in education, development and African emancipation. Wakumelo-Nkolola, Mildred and others 2008.
A Unified Orthography for Naimibian Bantu
Languaes: OshiWambo, OtjiHerero, Rukgwangali, Rumanyo, SiLozi and ThiMbukushu. CASAS Monograph Series No. 231.
11
