youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Minority languages are often under threat from the national or dominant language of a host society.People who speak the minority languages in a country may shift to another language easily but not always voluntarily, meaning, it is not a matter of choice. This may be necessitated by factors such as economic and political pressures. However, in certain domains, minority groups do have the option of using the mother tongue, e.g. with family, friends and in various organisations. There are therefore certain domains which can play a role in facilitating language maintenance. These domains and the factors underlining language maintenance are discussed in this Chapter.
Definitions of language maintenance
Crystal (1987:360) defines language maintenance as “a situation “where one language is holding its own despite the influence of powerful neighbours.” This means language maintenance is closely related to language loyalty and the extent to which speakers consciously resist changes in language use. Language maintenance can be defined as “a situation in which a language maintains its vitality,even under pressure” (Batibo 2005:102).It implies, therefore, that the degree of resistance is strong enough to contain any pressure that maybe coming from a dominant language. Batibo (2005:103) states that language maintenance usually applies to a relatively monolingual situation. However, it may take place in a stable diglossic situation, in which the functions of the first language (LI) and second language (L2) are well defined and remain unchanged. In as much as this maybe so, the stability of a diglossic or triglossic situation is often difficult to maintain because of the inequality in the status of the languages concerned,which means that speakers of LI (low-status language) must resist encroachment by the L2 (high status language) if the situation is to remain undisturbed.Batibo (2005) argues that in Africa, there are two scenarios that take place in the maintenance of a minority language. He states that, « when two languages are in contact, their relationship is either coordinate or superordinate » (Batibo 2005:103). When the relationship is coordinate the speakers learn each other’s languages on equal grounds so as to interact with each other easily. When it is superordinate, the speakers of the weaker language learn the speech of the stronger or prestigious language for wider communication or socio-economic gain. In the first case, the model of language contact involves a horizontal contact relationship that give rise to bilingualism, and language maintenance will normally prevail as the first language speakers will only use the second language when communicating and interacting with other ethnic groups. Since the second language will have no clearly visible admiration, status or socio-economic attraction in relationship to the first language,there can be no motivation for first language speakers to shift to the second language. Despite what has been said above, Batibo (2005:104) still feels that these scenarios are in a way theoretical, as in reality it may be that one of the two languages will have an edge over the other in terms of numbers, prestige, status or dynamism of the speakers.When there is a superordinate relationship, the second language tends to dominate the first language as it is more prestigious, more powerful, more socio-economically attractive or more widely used. In this case, a diglossic situation may arise in which the second language is used by the first language speakers in the higher or more public domains while the first language remains the medium of intraethnic and family communication as well as of cultural expression. Depending on the degree of resistance of the first language, the diglossic relationship between first language and second language may be stable, resulting in the maintenance of the first language. It can also be unstable and this can result in the progressive reduction of the factors assisting with the maintenance of the first language.In the case of superordinate language contact, a language shift is more likely to take place.Batibo (2005:105) emphasizes the notion that in a superordinate situation, the speakers of the first language will use the second language for both interaction and status promotion, and therefore will gradually want to shift to the more prestigious language. If the first language is to be maintained,speakers must find some value in the language so that continuing to transmit it to the younger generations is felt to be worthwhile. To summarize what has been said above, the most important factor in diglossic stability is the language attitude of the speakers towards the first language, which is supported by socio-economic or cultural factors in respect of the first language. According to Campbell and Schnell (1987:179), language maintenance can be defined in its relationship to the concept « language conservation. » The term « conservation » is used in the same sense as the concern for national resources, such as a careful preservation and protection of something, especially in the case of a management plan to conserve a natural resource (for example,forest) to prevent it from exploitation, destruction or neglect (Campbell and Schnell 1987:178). Other scholars such as Weinreich (1979) relate the concept of language maintenance to the term language loyalty. Language maintenance (as already stated) refers to the degree to which an individual or group continues to use their language, particularly in a bilingual or multilingual area, where language loyalty can be seen as a principle in the name of which people will rally themselves and their fellow speakers consciously and explicitly to resist changes in either the functions of their language (as a result of language shift) or in the structure or vocabulary as a consequence of interference. Weinreich (1979) also indicates that loyalty to a language will be demonstrated when the language (and/or its future) is threatened and loyalty sentiments bear some proportion to an actual or potential threat to the language. There are various areas or domains in which a language is used. Certain domains can influence or facilitate language maintenance. A survey of the literature reveals that the following domains are the most prominent in the maintenance of a language: education; religion; media; family; cultural organizations; residential area; gender and social structure (Pütz 1991:480). It should be borne in mind, however, that language maintenance and language shift are closely inter-related fields, and in many instances there is no clear distinction as to which domains are directly or primarily responsible for assisting in language maintenance and which ones are responsible for language shift. Many of the domains can be seen to be congruent or complementary, i.e. they can be as factors responsible for facilitating language maintenance, yet also necessitating a language shift. A discussion of each of these factorsfollows.
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction: Statement of the problem
1.2 Aim of the study
1.3 The research questions
1.4 The hypothesis of the study
1.5 Significance of the study
1.6 Motivation for the study
1.7 The Malozi and their language
1.7.1 Introduction
1.7.2 The origin of the Malozi and their language
1.7.3 The hegemony of Silozi in Caprivi, schools and radio
1.7.4 Who are the Malozi, then?
1.8 The brief history of Caprivi
1.9 Overview of the current Language policy of Namibia
1.10 Structure of the dissertation
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Definitions of language maintenance
2.3 Factors influencing language maintenance
2.3.1 Education
2.3.1.1 Bilingual education
2.3.1.2 Initial mother tongue instruction
2.3.2 Religion
2.3.3 Media
2.3.3.1 Publications
2.3.3.2 Broadcasting
2.3.4 Family
2.3.5 Ethnical cultural organizations
2.3.6 Residential area
2.3.6.1 Residential isolation
2.3.6.2 Language islands
2.3.6.3 Length of residence
2.3.6.4 Urban vs rural areas
2.3.7 Gender
2.3.8 Social structure
2.4 The importance of maintaining a minority language
2.5 Overview of literature on language maintenance
2.6 Conclusion
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research approach and sources used
3.3 Research design
3.4 Data collection instruments
3.4.1 Introduction
3.4.2 Interviews
3.4.3 The questionnaire
3.6 Research ethics
3.7 Data collection issues, problems and limitations
3.8 Overview of the methodology
3.9 Conclusion
Chapter 4: The results
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Results from Section B
4.3.1 Education
4.3.2 Cultural Activities
4.3.3 Media
4.3.4 Religion
4.3.5 Contact situations
4.3.6 Attitudes
4.3.7 Language Loyalty
4.4 Discussion of Results
4.4.1 Introduction
4.4.2 Education
4.4.3 The Media
4.4.3.1 Broadcasting
4.4.3.2 Publications
4.4.4 Religion
4.4.5 Contact situation
4.4.5.1 Contact with friends
4.4.5.2 Contact with family members
4.4.5.3 Language used to speak to neighbours
4.4.5.4 Language used at work place, school and college
4.4.6 Attitudes and language loyalty
4.4.7 Cultural festivals
4.5 Review of the result findings
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Summary, Recommendations and conclusions
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Overview of the dissertation
5.3 Trends, predictions and suggestions
5.3.1 Education
5.3.2 Media
5.3.3 Religion
5.3.4 Contact situations
5.3.5 Attitudes
5.4 Limitations of the study
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Introduction
5.5.2 The role of the government
5.5.3 Societies and associations
5.6 Preliminary conclusions
5.7 The value of maintaining Silozi in Namibia
5.8 Concluding statement
Bibliography
