CHAPTER TWO: Theories and ethnographies of literacy 2.1 Introduction
2.6 Ethnographic studies of community literacies
2.6.4 Literacy and language
In Uganda, Glanz (2001a) described her study as “an explorative and descriptive study of the forms and functions of literacy practices in multilingual societies from a linguistically ecological perspective”. She used the social practices theoretical perspective or the NLS’s approach, to investigate everyday literacy use in different domains of literacy in Kampala and Mpigi District in Central region of Uganda. This was in Buganda and the main language spoken in this region is Luganda.
The focus of her study was the influence of language policy on literacy use of first languages versus lingua franca and/or official languages. Her second focus was on how, in what language and contexts, different social groups use written information, and finally to identify some cultural factors which promote or restrict multilingual literacy practices.
To seek answers to these questions Glanz (2001a) used qualitative methods of collecting and describing data. These were interviews and observations of literacy events in different social contexts of life.
Glanz (2001a) groups her findings into 15 different domains of literacy use. These domains covered most aspects of private and public everyday life. Her second
classifications were the social events in which literacy was being used. Each domain was broken down into several social event types. For example under private transport, she had the activities of a guide, ticket sales, customer complaints, message delivery, and passing waiting time. She also broke down the social events into literacy activities that take place in these social events. Therefore, the activities of a taxi guide involve them in the following literacy activities: registering of incoming and outgoing vans and buses in the park, distributing of tickets, reading portable signposts on vehicles. The languages in which these literacy activities take place were Luganda and English.
Glanz’s (2001a) findings reveal that the national language policies influence people’s choice of the language of written communication because such policies give that language
status as official language and language of instruction in schools. However, in Buganda, English is used for inter-ethnic communication between people from different linguistic backgrounds, and for official communication at national and international levels.
Luganda, on the other hand, is a language of everyday communication in Buganda. Glanz also identified several factors, which promote or encourage literacy use in everyday life.
These included location, i.e. rural/urban. She noted that urban areas with their literacy- rich environments tend to promote literacy use. The existence or lack of literate facilities or institutions such as libraries, bookshops, schools, hospitals and churches also
encourage or discourage literacy use respectively. The financial capabilities of the community, the amount of time available for reading and writing, and the general educational level of the community were some of the factors which, she noted, influence literacy use in everyday life in a community.
In Northern Ghana, Herbert and Robinson (2001) studied the relationship between literacy and language in a multilingual context. They raised the important question of the position of language in shaping local literacy practices in northern Ghana, which is characterised by high linguistic diversity. They were interested in finding out which language is used for written communication in the different domains of literacy practices and why, if both literacy and language are cultural phenomena that change according to cultural contexts, does difference in language mean difference in literacy practices. These and other questions related to the relationship between literacy and languages were addressed by Herbert and Robinson.
The findings of Herbert & Robinson (2001) show that in Ghana, most people speak more than one language and they may be literate in all these different languages. Accordingly, they use different languages for different purposes, and the choice of which language to use for a particular purpose depends on a number of factors such as the history of that particular event, the perceived power of the language and the role it plays in that communication practice or situation. This was very evident in the language of worship used in the Northern Churches where the language of the people who first brought the faith continued to be used even when the local language bible and prayer books were published (see also Probst, 1993). Different social meanings that are attached to literacy by a particular group also shape people’s uses of reading and writing. For example, the language used for printing the local funeral and other traditional matters is the local language as this shows social identity (Herbert & Robinson, 2001). Formal letters are written in English even when the person writing the letter does not understand English. In such case, mediators are used to type out the letter like the scribe who sits at the Post
Office with a typewriter offering his services for a fee. Any person who intends to have a formal letter written for them would orally present the information to the scribe who then types them out in English and in the format appropriate for communicating such
information. The scribe therefore does both the translation and the typing.
In economic settings, what Herbert and Robinson (2001) call, “Economic literacies,”
English is used in employment, while the other languages are use for different economic purposes. Some people directly use their literacy skills to earn money by typing out people’s letters for them, for example, at the Post Office.
Literacy was also used in meetings, what Baron and Hamilton called, “Meeting literacies”
(1998, p. 215), which consist of reading minutes, and agendas in English, and reading aloud of financial and progress reports in the local Deg Language, when the minutes have been taken in English. The talk around this meeting as a literacy event is in Deg, the local language of the Northern Ghana people. The translation of the minutes into the local language is done concurrently as each minute is being read. The language used in the meeting depends on the composition of the membership. For example, if there are government officials, then the whole meeting is conducted in English and translated into Deg. The choice of language use according to Herbert and Robinson (2001) is based on the perceived status of what is being written, therefore, formal letters and information like the agenda of the meeting are written in English. While this practice of language mixing goes on in the meeting, some elements of the traditional communicative practices are also employed in communicating what is considered important, and for which trust must be developed (Herbert & Robinson, 2001).
Other reasons for the use of local language literacy or English, includes the use of literacy in asserting one’s identity, keeping ones privacy, and the need to correspond with a lover without the involvement of a third party. The practice of writing long essays in the local language is motivated by the need to communicate dialogue during disagreement and negotiations. People also paint proverbs in local languages on their bicycles and other vehicles. Writing, according to Herbert and Robinson (2001), is perceived to be a respectful way of communication among the Vaglas people in Northern Ghana, and they called this ‘personal literacy practices’. This includes, for example, writing a letter in traditionally appropriate ways and delivering it in a way that shows respect for the person who is receiving it (Herbert & Robinson, 2001).
Herbert & Robinson’s (2001), findings also show other modes of communication like making marks by women who sell beer to remind themselves about their debtors and
people informing their friends that they have gone ahead. Many other communicative symbols are used by people in different situations. For example, dressing in a particular way can be used to communicate some information in a community. These non-verbal and non-written systems of communication are part of the community’s communication repertoire that are based on the cultural practices of the community.
In their study, Herbert and Robinson (2001) identified literacy use in all the six overlapping areas of literacy use defined by Barton and Hamilton as organising life, personal communication, private leisure, documenting life, sense-making, and social participation (1998, pp. 247-250). Literacy uses in all these areas were rooted in everyday experience that serves different purposes. These literacy practices “are informally and non-formally learned, (and) not usually supported by formal institutions, (therefore) less valued in Ghana by dominant cultures” (Herbert & Robinson, 2001, p. 134). The literacy practices also involve the use of different media and symbol systems (see Barton &
Hamilton, 1998).
Herbert and Robinson (2001) make several conclusions about the relationship of literacy and language, as well as raising issues for further investigation. In relation to local language use and vernacular literacy, they conclude that local language literacy (i.e.
literacy in the local language) might not be the same as vernacular literacy although the use of vernacular language in literacy gives rise to practices that are similar to vernacular literacy.
On the question of differences in language practices being responsible for differences in literacy practices, Herbert and Robinson (2001) conclude that different languages do not necessarily mean a different literacy practice because there are many other factors that account for differences in literacy practices. These different factors include cultural and customary differences, historical differences and differences in external political influences. Although these factors may be carried and symbolised in languages, they are not caused by them. Therefore, differences in literacy languages have very little to do with differences in literacy practices. Surprisingly, they found that personal local language literacy practices are similar across language differences.
They also found that local languages in Ghana contrast with literacy in English much more than with each other. This is because English is a language of power and higher social status in Ghana as in most post-colonial African countries. Local language literacies are in common use at the grassroots level and for personal, non-institutional purposes.
Another study focusing on language use and literacy practices within the context of community development was conducted by Aikman in Peruvian Amazonia. Specifically this study was about literacy and development in a bilingual society in South-Eastern Peru (Aikman, 2001). Aikman’s study “examines different and contested development
discourses and practices and the conceptualisation of and expectation for literacy embedded in them” (2001, p. 103). This shows how different discourse-bearing contexts in community life influence the conceptualisation and motivation for literacy and how it is used in the everyday life of the community.
Aikman (2001) undertook her investigation of literacy and language use among the indigenous Harakmbut people through an examination of three antagonistic development conceptualisations in Madre de Dios. These three development conceptualisations are: (1) the church’s development practices aimed at civilising the indigenous people and
integrating them into the mainstream life style through education and production, (2) the government’s neo-liberal economic policies’ aims of exploitation of the natural resources on which the indigenous people depend for their livelihood, (3) the indigenous people’s self-development conception set as a counter hegemonic discourse to the church and government development discourses. The indigenous people’s self-development agenda is pursued through the formation of and participation in social movements that fight for the preservation of their cultural heritage as indigenous people.
These heterogeneous development conceptions exist in a linguistic milieu characterised by the use of the indigenous Harakmbut and Spanish languages. The Harakmbut use the indigenous language to communicate with each other and Spanish is used for inter-ethnic communication with non-Harakmbut speakers. The use of Spanish is growing due to intermarriages between Harakmbut and non-Harakmbut speakers. This bilingual situation also creates biliteracy in the two languages. In addition to being the lingua franca, Spanish is also the language of commerce, justice, and education. This usage reinforces the use of Spanish among the Harakmbut especially the younger generation who have attended schools in Spanish (Aikman, 2001).
It is within the above linguistic configuration in which Spanish is the dominant language and the heterogeneous and contested development framework that the conception of literacy by the Harakambut is framed. The church and the government development agendas for the indigenous people aim at the integration of the indigenous people. This development agenda prioritises individual people’s rights and equal citizenship that is inconsistent with indigenous people’s collective rights in terms of territorial integrity and
the need for self-determination. The government pursues this through a national Spanish language curriculum. The literacy conception promoted through the school is Spanish language literacy. This Spanish language literacy is cast as the language of civilisation, development and modernity. This conception of literacy promotes it as a requirement for access to the knowledge and skills that will modernise and develop the individual. The combination of Spanish and schooling, and schools being used for the spread of literacy in Harakambut influences the conception of literacy as being equal to schooling and being literate in the Spanish language.