On Language and National Development/Integration (II)
Some proposals have been made; some of them given as constitutional tokens, some outright political, while some are even sheer academic exercises. Yet, the question of what to do with our multi-ethnic and multi-lingual nation remains as evasive and as unanswered as they were at the point of attaining political, nay flag, independence. What has […]
Some proposals have been made; some of them given as constitutional tokens, some outright political, while some are even sheer academic exercises. Yet, the question of what to do with our multi-ethnic and multi-lingual nation remains as evasive and as unanswered as they were at the point of attaining political, nay flag, independence. What has never been in doubt, however, is the power of language in the politics of nation-building and national integration, anywhere in the world and since the beginning of time. We are all familiar with the biblical Tower of Babel, from which emerged the hetero-glossal notion of language. The world, the story goes, if I may refresh our memories, spoke one language until the people developed some vaulting ambition to square up with God. They erected a tower which they anticipate would link the earth to heaven. God did not, of course, take kindly to this unmistakable act of putsch, founded on a commonality of thought as a result of linguistic singularity. Collective or joint action was founded on language commonality. God then decided to fragment the tongues of men into innumerable varieties and thus multi-lingualism was established to forestall future coup d’état by men against their Maker. If you imagine today the power of language as a sole vehicle of ethnic identity and cultural unity, which in fact transcends or obstructs national identity, in a multi-lingual country like Nigeria, it will become obvious that language is central to national mobilization for growth and development.
The question continues to linger as to which ( if at all) language should be adopted to galvanize our nationhood or motivate a sense of belonging and identity-retrieval in our country. Our Constitution, or one version of our continually tinkered with Constitution, preoccupies itself with the task of de-emphasizing ethnic or regional loyalties in favour of national loyalty and patriotism. Section 15(4) of the 1979 Constitution specifically states that the State shall ‘foster a feeling of belonging and the involvement among the various peoples of the Federation, to the end that loyalty to nation shall override sectional loyalties.’
Linguists and language scholars have proposed that a strategic way of fostering national identity and national integration is through the establishment of a national language. The nearest, to my mind, that moved proximally towards actualizing this symbolism, in a way akin to other forms of symbolic gesturing identified many years ago, is by the eminent language scholar Professor Ayo Bamgbose. National language symbolism was drawn in a manner equated only by the national flag, the evasive national ideology, national anthem, national football and so on. Any of this national solidarity symbols have been drawn close to what Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s military government did in enshrining in the 1979 Constitution the three dominating Nigerian languages—Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba—as the languages of the business of the National Assembly alongside English. The National Policy of Education of 1977, revised in 1981, buttressed this constitutional provision by encouraging each Nigerian child to learn one of the three major languages in addition to his or her mother tongue at school. The effect/impact of these tall orders and compulsory advice is marginal as there has been no stringent or systematic enforcement of these ‘rulings’. Indeed, it may be just as well because, given the way things stand in this country, a political decision such as this will be perceived, justifiably, as an enlargement of linguistic imperialism, internally imposed, to buttress the hegemonic centralization of three languages out of over four hundred languages. It has been seen as enhancing the centre-periphery dichotomy being resisted by the postcolonial nations in respect of the language domination of foreign, imperial languages. It is like wrestling down one oppressive language (English in our case) by adding three new ones (albeit indigenous).
Frontline language scholars in Nigeria, including Professors Bamgbose, Banjo, Elugbe, Adeniran, Jibril and so on, have ruminated over the various strategies needed to deploy indigenous languages of Nigeria for national integration and national reconstruction. For instance, Professor Bamgbose, as far back as 1985, had pondered over two possible and plausible models, vide, the single language model and the multiplied language model. Even though he found then the single language model more attractive, neither himself nor his other colleague linguists coming after him offered a definitive strategy of actualizing the proposal. Even now, no decisive resolution has been found from among the feasible and attractive options available—English, a Nigerian language, pidgin, an artificial language like Mr. Igbineweka’s Gousa—a language proposal derived from a compilation of vocabulary items from numerous Nigerian languages, or even a continental language option such as Swahili that Professor Wole Soyinka once proposed during FESTAC 1977 Colloquium.
Well, the emergence of a national language from the indigenous languages cannot, and should not, be a political decision, and it cannot be done by irrational unstructured political fiat. It has to be an educational or a seminal process through rigorous national dialogue. Now, the effort that was made some time ago to develop technical and scientific linguistic registers from a handful of Nigerian languages is a positive step in the correct direction. Terminologies in Primary school Mathematics and Science were being developed in some nine Nigerian languages of Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba, Edo, Fulfulde, Erik, Tiv, Kanuri and Ijo. Many other languages have been given official attention at State levels through the mass media such as the television and the radio on a regular and sustained basis. It may just suffice to allow language production and expansion to evolve in this un-forced manner, with the likely hope that, in the final analysis, an official, national language may emerge. Remember, language is a growing organic phenomenon. With this geo-political effort to allow the indigenous languages in each area to be used for news transmission, story-telling, drama and other technical functions, the most viable languages will evolve and assume hegemonic dominance in each language zones and even across the country.
In the interim, a language like Pidgin has become popular in the Southern parts of the country, and even in many parts of the Northern states. Creative writers have also made it a medium of creative expression. Deployed sparingly in the works of Wole Soyinka, Femi Osofisan, my own works and quite dominantly as a full creative language in Tunde Fatunde’s play Oga Na Tief Man as well as Aig Imoukhuede’ s poetry, it is certain that pidgin may be a contending language for the nation’s national language. I must recall that during my 2009 residency at the Tennessee Technology at Cookeville, United States, the theatre director, Mark Crater, attempted, with some smattering success, to act the role of Chief Awadanu, written entirely in pidgin in my play, Naira Has No Gender. It is important to say that the entire American audience , including the cast producing the play, found the Chief’s line unintelligible. Pidgin is also not the language of the elite. As I said above, pidgin may be a strong contender for the single- language national language experiment. There is a strong and thriving experiment in Papua New Guinea, where pidgin is the language of parliament. But this is a small country, with a relatively few numbers of contending indigenous languages. Yet, pidgin is not an impossible option for a single-language model. Who knows?
To be continued.