**3. The tier stratification model**

Drawing from Jurgen Habermas's concept of the **'public sphere'** (Habermas 1965), we adopt and adapt the *concept (public sphere)* in the context of language planning for national development in a multilingual pluralistic nation-state. The nation is conceived as the **Public Sphere** which is bifurcated into the **private realm** and the **public realm (**each responding to similar or different sets of micro and macro language planning activities) as summarised in the diagram below.

#### **3.1 Public sphere**

All languages of the nation-state belong to **the public sphere**. This underscores the tenet of **pluralism** and the need to ensure and guarantee a place in the sun for each ethno-linguistic community in a pluralistic national community.

#### **3.2 Private realm**

All languages indigenous to the nation belong to and make maximal use of the **private realm**. Foreign languages that do not have mother tongue speakers within the nation-state do not belong to the private realm but those that do, belong. Thus English in South Africa will belong to the private realm (as well as the public realm) whereas in Lesotho, it will

These and many other arguments have led UNESCO (2001 and 2003abc) to take position in favour of the **conservation** of linguistic and cultural diversity. To this effect, the year 2001 was declared the year of **the mother tongue** in order to focus on the importance of the first medium of expression acquired in a natural setting and used by the human *genus* to express

Linguistic diversity and multiculturalism may be desirable and perhaps inevitable as indicated above, but it must be admitted that this situation is inherently prone to a number of problems real, potential or virtual. Ethno-linguistic identities if not channelled and bridled by a spirit of nationalism may become the source of misguided ethno linguistic loyalties that undermine nationalism occasioning dissention, tension and conflict resulting eventually in what Calvet 1998 has called ' **les guerres des langues' (**the war of languages). However, as has been pointed out by Fishman1986 such 'language wars' (where they surface) have little to do with **language** per se but result from the mismanagement of ethno linguistic diversity and multiculturalism. In other words, language related conflicts are ultimately a consequence of the social, economic and political inequalities that characterise

The proper management of languages in a multilingual setting in accordance with well known policy principles is therefore indispensable in stemming the potential tide of ethnic polarisation within the nation's fabric and ensuring linguistic rights, national integration

We propose, characterise and motivate below, a model for language planning and

Drawing from Jurgen Habermas's concept of the **'public sphere'** (Habermas 1965), we adopt and adapt the *concept (public sphere)* in the context of language planning for national development in a multilingual pluralistic nation-state. The nation is conceived as the **Public Sphere** which is bifurcated into the **private realm** and the **public realm (**each responding to similar or different sets of micro and macro language planning activities) as summarised in

All languages of the nation-state belong to **the public sphere**. This underscores the tenet of **pluralism** and the need to ensure and guarantee a place in the sun for each ethno-linguistic

All languages indigenous to the nation belong to and make maximal use of the **private realm**. Foreign languages that do not have mother tongue speakers within the nation-state do not belong to the private realm but those that do, belong. Thus English in South Africa will belong to the private realm (as well as the public realm) whereas in Lesotho, it will

his/her ego and innermost thoughts.

**2.4 Linguistic diversity and language management** 

and polarise ethno linguistic communities within the nation- state

and national development of all the different communities.

management in a multilingual situation..

community in a pluralistic national community.

**3. The tier stratification model** 

the diagram below.

**3.1 Public sphere** 

**3.2 Private realm** 

belong only to the public realm. The private realm is characterised essentially by the **identity function** of language as a mother tongue of those who acquire and use it as a first language.

Key: L= Language; Ln= any number of Languages; T=Tier

Fig. 1. Tier Stratification Model of Language Planning in the Public Sphere

The Challenge of Linguistic Diversity and Pluralism:

**4. Language planning in the public sphere** 

are not marginalised.

**scholarship** in language planning.

and national objectives.

**4.1 Macro - Planning level** 

Chumbow 1987) or both.

The Tier Stratification Model of Language Planning in a Multilingual Setting 331

This underscores the fact that good governance in a pluralistic state presupposes decentralisation in consonance with boundaries of natural affinities determined by cultural bonds and /or geographical contiguity. Policy at the public realm aggregates and considers situations at the base, ensuring that local (rural ethno linguistic) communities

In section 1 above, is asserted the fact that a major threat to pluralism in multilingual communities is language endangerment leading to attrition, assimilation, language loss and language shift. As underscored in Chumbow 2009, " in any linguistic contact situation in a multilingual setting, the default tendency is the '*law of the jungle' or survival of the fittest.* The mega languages which are functionally dominant and powerful tend to gradually and inexorably 'consume' the smaller languages if left alone. Therefore, acceptance of a policy of pluralism by way of a *credo* in linguistic diversity in the enterprise of nation building **ipso facto** entails a commitment to language planning to ensure *revitalisation* of threatened, less dominant endangered languages and **revalorisation** mechanisms to ensure language **maintenance** i.e. the maintenance of inherent or acquired vitality of all languages of the public sphere. This has led to an upsurge in the development and implementation of language revitalisation and language maintenance mechanisms, principles and techniques especially since Fishman 1991 and UNESCO 2003a. This, in turn, has given rise to what I may conveniently call **counter- endangerment activities** and **counter endangerment** 

All of these endeavours clearly underscore the need and significance of language planning in a multilingual setting. While language planning has a long history of existence and vibrant activity, UNESCO's recent focus on linguistic diversity and its **counter endangerment posture** has given the enterprise of language planning a new impetus and today, scholarship in language planning stands in need of effective models that take into consideration the facts of linguistic situations (the multilingual reality and endangerment)

Within the Tier Stratification model, Language Planning at the **Macro-Planning Level (Ma PL)** involves taking measures of status, corpus and acquisition planning (in the sense of Cooper 1989), to provide and envisage solutions to language problems of the nation-state at all levels. Ma PL covers either policy formulation or policy implementation in the (sense of

Macro-language Planning therefore takes place when both the private realm and the public realm (or any parts of the public realm) are involved. Thus a decentralised administrative unit like a Municipality or Council, Province or State (in a Federal system of governance) can undertake planning at its own level or administrative tier covering both ethno-linguistic communities (Private realm) of its jurisdiction and hierarchically higher tiers (Public Realm). However, generally, macro-planning is best undertaken at the national level and consecrated by a National Language Plan (of Action) resulting from a Language Charter/Law or Act (Chumbow 2010c). A national language policy based on a judicious

#### **3.3 Public realm**

Some languages of the Private Realm along with exoglossic or foreign languages required as languages of interaction with the global community, (which may or may not belong to the private realm), are selected to constitute languages of the **Public Realm** 

#### **3.4 Public sphere and the dialectic between the public realm and the private realm**

After a general definition of the public sphere and the private and public realms, it is important to clearly articulate here, for the purpose of operationalisation of terms, the concept of **public sphere** within this model and the dialectic relationship between the **private realm** and **public realm** as components of the **Public Sphere** 

The **public sphere** in this paradigm is the aggregation of the private and public realms**.**  Recall that *grosso modo,* the languages of the *private realm* include all the ethno-linguistic community languages and languages of the *public realm* are those selected to play are significant role in education or administration etc. at any of the administrative tiers or levels (local government, provincial or regional, state or national levels etc…see the diagram). The private realm does not mean an unimportant realm but rather it constitutes the foundation or base on which the languages of the public realm are firmly grounded. This underscores the fact that the discourse of national development in the public realm or at the national level, must take into consideration the multilingual and multicultural realities at the base or private realm**.** Put differently**,** in the public sphere or national territory, policy for the mega language(s) that function as official languages, should be inextricably linked (by planned policy) to the reality of the ethno-linguistic diversity at the base. Ultimately, there should be a bidirectional flow of information from the base to the top and vice versa, or from the official and national language(s) to and from the community languages etc. The essential concern here is that information and development relevant knowledge available in the public realm (disseminated in the official or national languages) should ultimately be made available to the private realm by the use of community languages which are better known and understood by the local populations.

In this way, the fruits and by-products of development will be shared by the national community thus eliminating the present state of affairs characterised by the **marginalisation and exclusion o**f the rural communities whose community languages are presently not involved in the national development discourse.

The public sphere in relation to tier stratification is made up of the tiers of recognised administrative units plus one (the additional tier being the fundamental tier of the private realm). Thus, the **tiers** vary from country to country, depending on the core administrative units recognised by the nation (from local government units, or municipalities (councils, counties, etc) to provinces or states . The private realm is the basic or fundamental tier of the home or community where every language is spoken as a mother tongue and means of ethno-linguistic community identity and the other tiers belong to the public realm where language use is essentially intended to assure inter group communication beyond the home as illustrated in the above diagram (Fig 1).

Language planning at the public realm is at the macro- planning level. The number of **tiers** in the public realm is equal to the number of state recognised administrative units**.**  This underscores the fact that good governance in a pluralistic state presupposes decentralisation in consonance with boundaries of natural affinities determined by cultural bonds and /or geographical contiguity. Policy at the public realm aggregates and considers situations at the base, ensuring that local (rural ethno linguistic) communities are not marginalised.
