LANGUAGE ATTITUDES, PREFERENCES AND USAGE
4.5 A behaviourist definition of attitudes
The behaviourist definition locates attitudes in actual overt behaviour or responses. For analysis this view has little or no problems as attitudes are defined entirely in terms of observable data where the only way to determine them is by observation and statistical analysis in given social situations. The only criticism of this approach is on its theoretical implications which make attitude a dependent variable (Agheyisi and Fishman, 1971).
Inboth the mentalist and behaviourist approaches, there is no difference between what is actually measured as they invariably base their approaches on the 'consistency' of the responses. We would thus construe these variations in the definition of attitude as semantic disagreements among authorities like Ajzen (1988) and McGuire (1985), where for the former, an attitude refers to ' a disposition to respond favourably or unfavourably to an object, person, "institution, or event' (Ajzen 1988:04). For the latter the notion of attitude locates objects of thought on dimensions ofjudgement. This would, for example, consider a language as an object which is viewed as favourable or unfavourable.
Another aspect of attitudes is whether they are seen to have a unitary or multiple structure. Again, there are different viewpoints here between mentalists and behaviourists. Those who see an attitude as a latent psychological variable also usually view it as having a multiple component structure. There are also those who identify it just with responses as such. These view it as a unitary component. The multiple component definition posits the following:
1. cognitive or knowledge;
81
11. affective or evaluative;
111. conative or action.
Others like Rockeach (1968) (in Fishman, 1971) ascribe a complex structure. They defme them as being primarily composed of beliefs, as observed above, with each belief, in turn, composed of cognitive, affective and behavioural components. Others still make a distinction stating that attitudes comprise an affective component only, but have both cognitive and conative components.
A major criticism of this view is that it is impossible to determine for every individual 'the actual interrelatedness and organisation of attitude components with respect to anyone object' (Agheyisi and Fishman 1971: 139). The result of such kind of multi- dimensional concepts is that they are problematic not only theoretically but also in practical terms when it comes to translating theory into research as Fishbein (1966: 108, in Agheyisi and Fishman (1971) observed. Therefore, the three major areas that have typified language attitudes in particular are:
I. those concerned with evaluating languages as classical, standard, official as against what is today commonly referred to as non-standard and vernacular varieties;
11. those concerned with the social significance of languages or their varieties and the attitudes towards speakers of different languages in multilingual contexts; and
in. those concerned with language choice and usage, which is essentially language behaviour, language reinforcement and planning, language learning, and the different views towards dialects and their intelligibility.
82
Although these categories outlined here have different emphasis, they are not mutually exclusive as some attitudes could indicate or imply an extension of these attitudes to their speakers.
Anintegrated approach to language attitudes has recently categorised standardisation and vitality and the conception of status and in-group solidarity (Ryan and Giles, 1982).
These two are viewed as determinants influencing the development and expression of status and in-group solidarity as the two main evaluative dimensions of language attitudes.
Fishman (1971) posits that research in language attitudes is impossible without considering the element of vitality. He observes that the status of any language will rise and fall depending on the importance of the symbolic functions that a given language serves. The rise of Chichewa in this study is a case in point: it was elevated from its humble status as a dialect of Chinyanja, the language, to a full-fledged symbolic status language, and therefore to the prominence of the sole indigenous national language.
Fishman also notes that while standardisation is a contributory factor to a dialect's vitality, its strong vitality is enhanced by achieving standardisation. For our purposes, the prominence and elevation of English as the official language of power during and after the colonial period was unquestioned as it had long been standardised with a long literary history behind it. The weight of institutional support accorded to English made it acquire a social significance which the two other indigenous official languages, Chinyanj a and Chitumbuka, lacked from the colonial era to the post-eolonial period. This led to a situation whereby the use of English or an indigenous language in a particular situation is usually associated with value connotations of status or in-group identity. As a result of this history many have since looked at English as the most viable way of acquiring an education and subsequently white-collar employment (see Siachitema, 1985 in-view of the Zambian situation) .
The other is the situation of Chichewa and the attitude with which others, particularly those who did not and do not belong to the ethnic group associated with the language,
83
viewed it. For the ordinary masses, including the civil servants, the statutory bodies and the private sector, its social significance was heightened through its intimate associations with these institutions and what it expressed and meant. It became a symbol of power and prestige to belong to or be associated with its ethnolinguistic group, which in turn
meant and gave power, prestige and honour to those who spoke it, particularly its central region dialect. Thus for the majority it would appear that they succumbed to the use of Chichewa on account of the socio-economic and political pressure that it exerted on the nation. Those who expressed dissent of any form would lose their employment and their immediate relations as well with a strong likelihood of political detention. The option was therefore to comply and use the language even with the most bizarre pronunciation and praise of the government and its leader.
Finally on the question of attitudes, there also appears to be some consensus that attitudes, as in the case of Chichewa, are a result of what has been learnt from the previous experience. Such attitudes are not momentary; they are quite enduring. Today, Chinyanja (formerly Chichewa) is still accorded social significance in the media and in early education, even with the elevation of other local languages to the official status.
There is also agreement among theorists that attitudes bear some positive relation to action or behaviour either as a special aspect of behaviour itself or as a 'predisposition to behaviour'. Itis also suggested that it is not always the case that all components of an attitude will imply behaviour (Ehrlich; 1969 in Agheyisi and Fishman, 1971).
The argument that attitudes could be viewed as a 'predisposition to behaviour' is rejected by theorists like Rokeach (1968) on the grounds that a predisposition that does not lead to a response cannot be detected. Rokeach maintains that all attitudes must be viewed as 'agendas to action' along with other determinants such as 'wants' and 'situational conditions'. The relevance of this argument is the low level of correlation- between attitude and actual behaviour, although it must be mentioned that the fact that the two correlate in some way does not mean that one causes the other.
84
It is also important to distinguish between an attitude and an opimon: the former constitutes part of the subconscious and would usually not be revealed by direct questions; the latter, on the other hand, is the conscious expression of what an individual believes and is often not a genuine reflection of the individual's attitude, since the opinion will usually be influenced by a number of situational factors.(Webb, 1979, in Roos,
1990). It is this fact that makes attitude measuring a difficult exercise because indirect questions have to be devised in order to reveal attitudes, not opinions.