LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2 COMMUNICATION IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXTS
2.2.3 Intercultural Identities
House (2000) presents a framework for analyzing mismanaged communication in cross-cultural interactions using examples of cases of failed interpersonal and interactional relationships. In her presentation she begins with a list of reasons as to why misunderstandings occur in interactions between two or more people. She includes what she refers to as "uncooperativeness on the part of the hearer, who may have understood perfectly well what the speaker had tried to communicate, but just intended to be awkward" (146).
Although House did not pursue this discussion, 'uncooperativeness' is a useful concept that I shall explore in the literature in this section to show that interlocutors, whether the speaker or hearer is competent linguistically or otherwise, may deliberately ignore the rules guiding acceptable behaviour or 'contextualization cues' during interaction.
Reports on research into multilingual contexts have shown that the choice of language and language usage have significant meanings for the identity of multilingual people in the community. Apart from the ability of people to choose and use language as an instrument of communication, either to communicate information, and/or for interpersonal relations, language is also a symbol of social or group identity, "an emblem of group membership and solidarity" (Grosjean
1982:117). Haugen (1956) argues that language:
is at once a social institution, like the laws, the religion, or the economy of the community, and a social instrument which accompanies and makes possible all other institutions, [and] as an institution, it may become a symbol of the community group (1956:87).
Haugen (1956) further notes that language use is accompanied by the attitudes and values placed on it by its users and non-users of the language, both as an instrument of communication and a symbol of group identity. Individual attitudes towards a language will impact, for example, on the value placed on the language, and invariably, on how much of it is used by the first language speakers or learnt by second language speakers. In other words, the status of the language also influences the attitudes of speakers as well as non-speakers.
Wherever languages are in contact, one is likely to find certain prevalent attitudes of favour or disfavour towards the languages involved. These can have profound effects on the psychology of the individuals and their use of the languages. In the final analysis these attitudes are directed at the people who use the languages and are therefore inter-group judgements and stereotypes (1956:95).
When two languages come into contact, usually one language is dominant over the other. Studies of multilingualism, such as Grosjean (1982); Beardsmore (1986);
Holmes (1999) and Spolsky (1998), have pointed out that the dominant language is usually spoken by the group that holds political, cultural and economic power in the community. The others are minority languages (in terms of power relations), spoken by groups that hold less power and prestige. The language users' attitudes toward the prestigious and less prestigious language(s) would influence their willingness to learn or use the different languages.
Fishman's contribution to the study of multilingualism includes his analysis of the domains of language. Fishman (1971) argues that the individual language choices of multilingual speakers in everyday conversation, and their decisions about the appropriate language or variant, are largely determined by domains of language use.
A domain is determined by the location of the verbal exchange, participants
(addressee/speaker) and the topic of the discourse. Some factors influencing language choice include participants in the exchange, language proficiency and preference, socio-economic status, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and education. For example, South Africa has eleven official languages; speakers of more than one of the eleven languages, it is assumed, will choose the appropriate language in relation to the domain. We must also keep in mind that the eleven languages, although official, do not have equal status, and this can be described in terms of diglossia, which is explained below. There is also the situational factor, as in the location or setting, the presence of monolinguals, the degree of intimacy between interlocutors, and lastly, the factor of the topic or content of discourse.
Ferguson (1959) introduced the concept of diglossia in relation to the functional allocation of language varieties in societies. Through his discussion we are shown that some languages (or varieties of a single language) have higher status, and are normally used in certain domains, such as place of worship, market place and place of learning (school). He described diglossia as a situation where two varieties of a language, identified as high (H) and low (L) varieties, have distinct social functions in the community. Where an H variety is used, the L variety is not used, and vice versa. Examples of such exist all over the world, such as H German and L Swiss German, which is spoken only in Switzerland. In my experience in Nigeria, Yoruba is H and Ijesha dialect of Yoruba is L. Fishman (1971) extends the theory of diglossia to include the situations of any two languages that are in contact and also uses it to describe what happens where two or more varieties of the same language are used in different social settings. The H language or variety is generally associated with prestige and power, while the Ls are less prestigious and less powerful. In recent years, the scope of diglossia has been further expanded to include more than two languages. Holmes (1992) states that the term 'polyglossia' can be used for multilingual situations where a community uses more than two languages.
Kamwangamalu (2000) illustrates with African examples Ferguson's original theories of diglossia and Fishman's extended definition. He argues that indigenous African languages with a literary tradition, such as "[I]sizulu in South Africa, Kiswahili in Tanzania, Cibemba in Zambia, and Yoruba in Nigeria" have two varieties, the high and low (2000: 104). The H varieties are used in places like church, or taught at school, and the low ones are commonly spoken at home or marketplace. Likewise, the relationship between African languages and ex-colonial languages, such as English, French and Portuguese, is also diglossic. The ex-colonial languages are prestigious, while the indigenous languages are less prestigious and less powerful. Most African countries, at independence, adopted the ex-colonial language as a lingua franca that could also be used as a 'contact language' for inter- group communication. In Africa, ex-colonial languages are "the language(s) of administration, the media, education, diplomacy, social mobility, inter-ethnic communication, and international business transactions" (Kamwangamalu 2000:105).
Despite the diglossic nature of language and dialect usage in Africa, the language attitudes of the people play a significant part in their choice of language. For instance Wolff (1964, 1967) and Oke (1972) have separately studied language attitudes of speakers of small-scale languages in different Nigerian communities and have established that peoples' scale of preference is determined by complex factors ranging from political and cultural to socio-economic. According to Wolff (1964:442) the people of Ishan and Etsako speakers rejected the "universal Edo"
orthography, a more prestigious usage, for fear of Edo linguistic imperialism. As Ndukwe (1990) points out, it appears that the differences in language attitudes and choice are strongly linked to people's motivation to identify with groups. The motivation can either be positive or negative and it influences language choice directly. People easily adopt and adhere to the rules of groups which they perceive as socially powerful, to the extent of wanting to be identified with them.
Webb and Kembo-Sure (2000) point out that in South Africa, the perception of language as an identity marker7 differs from community to community. For instance, in some Afrikaans-speaking areas, Afrikaans is regarded as an indispensable part of the socio-cultural life of the communities and people express loyalty and love for the language. However, in some black communities, Afrikaans is regarded as a "symbol of oppression, triggering anger and resistance" (2000:11). Similarly, Webb and Kembo-Sure point out that the popularity of English in South Africa as a symbol of liberation is also being contested "because of the insistence that a specific set of language norms (namely British English) be applied" (2001:11). In addition, a struggle for ethnic superiority also exists within the South African family of Bantu languages. Webb and Kembo-Sure (2000:11) argue that nowadays it is a common occurrence to find a speaker of isiZulu in conversation with a speaker of Setswana, and each speaking his/her own language and refusing to accommodate the other.
Studies in second language acquisition like that of Peirce (1995) have also pointed out that 'social identity' means the various ways in which people understand themselves in relation to others. This also includes the ways in which people view their past and their future, and how they want to be viewed and understood. The ability to speak a target language is sometimes constrained by the power relations between speakers, and structural inequalities such as gender, race, ethnicity and class can limit learners' exposure to the target language and the opportunities to learn it.
Peirce (1995) cites the example of immigrant women from Vietnam, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Peru living in Canada who pretend not to understand English in order to retain their identity as elderly women, which attracts a lot of respect for them. Peirce's investigation shows how far people will go to ensure that they are seen and received as they desire. This suggests that the identity desired by a person involved in an interaction, and the way in which he or she aspires to be represented, may well impact on the outcome of the conversation.
7 'Identity marker' refers to the language functioning as a symbol of individual and group identity, which is probably the most important feature of language in multilingual and multicultural societies.
Scollon and Scollon (1996), in their investigation of misunderstanding and conflict between members of the different ethnic groups in Alaska and Northern Canada, argue that problems arise from ideas and information. The way in which a claim is presented is usually influenced by the presenter's identity. Drawing on Goffman (1974) they point out that the concept of 'self manifests itself in everyday interaction between people. According to Goffman, identity is the way in which one views oneself in interaction, since it is through talking that we present ourselves and our self-view to others. Scollon and Scollon (1995) argue that the presentation of self occurs in many ways, for instance, it is reflected in our choice of words, in our tone of voice, in the attitudes we display and in the topics about which we talk. In talking each participant presents a particular view of the world and of self (1995:62).
The self people want to portray is usually displayed when engaged in discourse. The self which people present may also vary from one discourse type to another.
Similarly, Tajfel and Turner's (1979) social identity theory states that a person has not one 'self, but rather several 'selves' that relate to particular situations8. For instance, as Turner et al (1987:45) point out, the different social contexts may influence an individual to think, feel and act on the basis of his personal, familial or national "level of self which may be different from other "levels of self; an individual has multiple "social identities". According to Hogg and Vaughan (2002), the individual's self concept is derived from perceived membership of social groups.
In other words, it is an individual-based understanding of what defines the group identity that is exhibited for others to see. Hence the sense of self is presented which has been developed through interaction with the group(s) with which the self identifies.
It would therefore appear that the attitude of people towards languages of communication can sometimes influence their own choice of language, dialect and
Social Identity Theory was developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979, with the original intention of understanding the psychological basis of inter-group discrimination.
type of vocabulary and pronunciation, which may lead to an intentional modification of the 'self which they present in speech which the self identified with. It is possible to associate "favour or disfavour" (a language attitude identified by Haugen,
1956:95), with a speaker's choices of language or dialect, and this may produce an intentional pragmatic transfer. Haugen (1956) equally identifies as "favour" or
"disfavour" a positive or negative attitude in an addressee to the language which he or she hears, and suggests that this too may lead to intentional, or unintentional, pragmatic transfer.
Researchers such as Ferguson (1971); Fishman (1965); Huagen (1956) and Lambert (1955) have defined multilingualism at individual and societal levels and have broadened its scope to include the interaction of the norms and protocols of multiple languages and cultures. According to Spolsky (1998), multilingualism evolved historically from voluntary or involuntary migration of people speaking one language into the territory of another group of speakers of another language, and hence is the result of "conquest and subsequent incorporation of speakers of different languages into single units" (1998:53). This is occasionally true for African communities that were colonised by major European powers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (of course South Africa which was colonised earlier): the Khoi language, for example, has left some traces in Afrikaans, and the remaining descendants of the Khoi are for the most part speakers of Afrikaans. However, colonialism is not the only reason for migration. Nowadays, there are internal wars, economic hardship, educational and religious factors and a whole range of political situations in which people are displaced (Grosjean 1982; Beardsmore 1986; Holmes
1999).
Multilingualism remains a fact of social life in Africa today. Webb and Kembo-Sure (2000) estimate the languages of the world as numbering 6600. In Africa about 2000 of the world languages are spoken as first languages by more than 480 million people. Some of the languages are closely related, others are mutually unintelligible.
Some of the languages belong to the same language family and have been classified according to their linguistic relationship, that is, their lexis and structure or syntax (in which case their words and sentence formation are similar). African languages have been classified into four language families: Afro-Asiatic languages, Nilo- Saharan languages, Khoisan languages, and Niger-Congo languages.9 This diversity of language families and languages represents different cultures. As pointed out by Coulmas (1997:34), language is a 'genetic fingerprint of unmistakable cultural identity". Oyelaran (1990), in agreement with Coulmas, argues that the most important "carrier" of people's culture is their language, which is the most distinctive of all the traits which separate human beings from each other. In other words, language is not just a product of culture, but also the tool employed for the expression of cultural norms and practice.
In a multilingual community, individuals make a number of choices in their daily interactions, whether as monolinguals or multilinguals. Coulmas (1997), in an investigation of people's choices of language, argues that individuals' choices of words, registers, styles and languages in a multilingual setting are strongly linked to their various communicative ideas, their association with and separation from others, and the concession, establishment or defence of dominance. This suggests that during interaction multilingual people will constantly be choosing amongst varieties of language and languages to communicate their understanding of a situation without losing, or too greatly modifying, their preferred identity. In the present study, identity negotiation through the use of antagonistic discourse, that is, impoliteness, appears to play a crucial role in the different groups' performance of communicative acts. It is therefore essential in this study to explore identity as a tool
The Afro-Asian language family consists of the Semitic language Arabic, and related dialects which are the language of some Islamic peoples. The African family includes the Amharic languages of Ethiopia, Oromo or Gala of Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Northern Tanzania, and the Hausa language of Nigeria. The Nilo-Saharan family consists of Samburu, Kpsigis, and Nandi, spoken in Kenya; Dholuo as well as Masai, spoken in Kenya and Tanzania, Padhola and Acholi spoken in Uganda, and Dinka, Par, and Nuer spoken in Sudan. The Khoisan family includes Khoikhoi and San (also referred to as Bushman) in southern Africa, including Namibia, Botswana, Angola, Tanzania.
Niger-Congo languages form the largest family and include the Bantu languages of sub-Saharan Africa: Yoruba and Ibo in Nigeria, Kiswahili in Central and East Africa, Kikongo, Kinyawanda,
for the understanding of the different perceptions and reactions displaced by the participants.