The Webbook of African
Language Resources
The Webbook of African Language Resources
This directory is intended
to serve as a guide to the 82 high priority African languages. Each is profiled
according to:
The Language Headings
As we began assembling these profiles, we encountered a major complication: An underlying, if not overt, assumption of the 1979 priorities conference was that each of the 82 language headings represented a distinct language in the Western sense - that only one set of learning materials need be assembled for adequate instruction in the language. In preparing the profiles, however, we often found that linguistic varieties (dialects) within a language heading might, for various reasons, require more than one set of learning materials. It soon became clear that before making any materials recommendations, it would be necessary to know how many sets of learning materials would be adequate for teaching the languages and dialects.
Language Units
For the purposes of this discussion, we define language unit as a collection of dialects and possibly even distinct languages for which one set of learning materials would provide adequate coverage. With this definition, we then sought to determine how many language units belonged to each of the 82 priority language headings.
Establishing the language units was much more difficult than might appear from this definition. Above all, such units must conform to the social reality of the usage of the language varieties. Thus, while structural measurements of common vocabulary, shared morphological and syntactic features, and degree of mutual intelligibility may be useful in identification, it may well be that historical developments involving economic, social, and cultural factors also render these structural criteria not only irrelevant but also misleading. Furthermore, we must recognize the possibility that even a thorough knowledge of the historical context will not lead us to unequivocal language units.
Written Traditions
In many cases, our task was simplified or even completed because a standard literary form of the language in question existed. For example, in Amharic, Swahili, and Hausa, language materials are generally written using the standard literacy form (even though explanatory notes and perhaps diacritics may be needed to explain how the written form is to be pronounced).
Furthermore, it is clear from our knowledge of the development of language standardization in the West that literacy and the establishment of a written tradition have played an extremely important role. In this regard, one of the clearest indicators of whether two linguistic varieties (languages or dialects of the same language in the strictest sense ) are considered distinct variants of the same language is whether the two share the same literary tradition. In fact, we may go farther by noting that different literary traditions are often represented by different dictionaries specifying the written form to be used, regardless of phonemic form of the dialects involved. Thus German and Dutch, while mutually intelligible, stand as separate and distinct languages by virtue of their different writing traditions and distinct dictionaries.
Most African languages do not have a written tradition that dates before 1900. In the twentieth-century rush to develop orthographies and writing traditions for these languages by various agencies, official and unofficial, several competing traditions often arose for what is ostensibly the same linguistic form. The task of language planners and policy makers in Africa has not been so much one of establishing a written tradition as of resolving the problem of conflicting traditions.
It should also be clear that while one orthography may be better from either a phonemic or practical writing point of view, the process by which a single writing tradition emerges is essentially political, involving negotiation, compromise, and legislation, a process that can only occur over time. Needless to say, this is happening in all countries of Africa, generally with official government sanction, but usually with little financial support because of limited resources. Nevertheless, language teachers need to recognize that these efforts to establish written traditions are tantamount to establishing a standard dialect of the language. Not only is this an important and natural development in its own right, but also, when accomplished, it solves the task defined above of establishing what we have termed "language units." It is important, then, that the African linguistic community outside Africa not only keep abreast of these efforts but also offer assistance when possible.
The Domain of a Language
Related to the questions of usage and orthography the problem of identifying the domain of the language headings used in this directory. The term domain here refers to where, on what occasions, and with whom a language is spoken. This seemingly simple matter is not so easily resolved, especially in Africa. Several surveys of the domain of African languages have been undertaken, such as Voegelin and Voegelin (1978) survey of the lingua franca of Africa. Similar work has been done periodically by missionary societies, such as the United Bible Society's World Translation Program Report. David Dalby (1977), of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, has put together a detailed map of the languages of Africa.
The question of domain is complicated by the reality that one cannot always sharply separate one language from another or neatly subdivide a language into its dialects. We find within Africa, as elsewhere, language areas (such as eastern Nigeria and southern Liberia) where mutual intelligibility exists between adjacent communities but not across the area as a whole. This situation points out the futility of insisting that mutual intelligibility is a reliable criterion for either separating languages or defining dialects.
This problem is also complicated by conceptions of what constitutes a language community. For some it includes all people speaking a common linguistic form, for others it represents an ethnic group or geographic region (regardless of whether what is spoken there is distinct form other groups or regions). The conception of language also involves the question of whether one community wants to be included in the same linguistic term as that used by another community (there are those who argue that British and American English are different languages). finally, defining domains is further hampered by lack of information and by conflicting information. The reasons are understandable. Dialect surveys of the sort needed are time-consuming, expensive, and rarely a priority.
We are encouraged by the publication by Michael Mann and David Dalby of their Thesaurus of African Languages (1987), which consists of a classified, annotated and indexed list of African languages with a substantial bibliography. It is clear that their directory simplifies our task in profiling the 82 selected languages. Now it is possible to refer the reader to the Mann and Dalby directory for more extensive information on these languages, while we confine ourselves to providing enough information to identify the respective domains. This information is supplied by items (1) and (2) of the profiles.
| [African Studies Center] |
If you have
any questions or comments about this site, contact the
Website Developer
http://isp.msu.edu/AfrLang/