**1. Introduction**

Research crystallized by UNESCO leads to the observation that contrary to popular opinion, **multilingualism is the norm in human societies and mono-lingualism an exception.** Most countries of the world are multilingual. There are over 6600 languages in the world and about 2 086 in Africa (Ethnologue 2009). Africa is the most linguistically diversified continent. All African countries are multilingual in varying degrees; from two or three languages in Lesotho, Swaziland, Rwanda and Burundi to over 450 in Nigeria (Ethnologue 2009)

It is also now axiomatic that multilingualism is not an obstacle to development but merely a challenge to policy formulation and implementation in the service of national development. The challenge of nationalism throughout history and more especially in the present millennium is to build a strong economically viable pluralistic nation from ethnolinguistic diversity. In line with UNESCO's position in favour of the maintenance of linguistic and cultural diversity (UNESCO 2003a), we motivate propose and justify a **Tier Stratification Model of Language Planning** that seeks to guarantee nationalism and pluralism over a foundation of a vibrant ethno-linguistic identity. The model seeks to make it possible for languages to be maximally utilised in the **public sphere**, such that each language community can conserve, preserve and maximise the development of its ethno-linguistic identity and ensure the optimal use of its language at some level(s) of the public sphere while participating fully in the social, economic and political life of the nation.

### **2. Linguistic diversity and ideology paradigms**

Recent scholarship on linguistic diversity and multilingualism has been focused on language **endangerment** and language **maintenance**. Languages that are functionally vibrant and full of vitality may become endangered by losing their vitality as a result of a conjuncture of social, economic, political and linguistic factors and go through varying phases of attrition or progressive weakening resulting ultimately in language loss or language death. (See for instance Fishman 1968, Brezinger 1992, 2007, Mackey 1997,

The Challenge of Linguistic Diversity and Pluralism:

multilingualism and the pluralism of cultures.

multilingual setting.

(Chumbow 2009).

1986, Baker 2003).

national development. (Chumbow 1987).

is the poorer for it ( UNESCO 2003 a).

of identity (Fishman 1998).

**2.2 Nation building by way of pluralism** 

The Tier Stratification Model of Language Planning in a Multilingual Setting 327

This is an ideological paradigm which seeks to maintain and develop each linguistic and cultural heritage within the nation-state as a core consideration in the enterprise of nationalism and nation building. Such an ideology, naturally favours linguistic diversity,

As underscored in Chumbow 2010b and 2011a, pluralism is patently the more dominant paradigm in the face of UNESCO positions in favour of linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism (UNESCO 2003a, b, c) as well as the African Union's Charter of Cultural

If the UNESCO's position enjoys an ascendency that results in the dominance of the Pluralism paradigm which is fast becoming the object of a global agenda, it is precisely because of the intrinsic appeal of favourable fundamental arguments of a factual nature. Justification for cultural pluralism comes first from the incontrovertible facts of linguistic and cultural diversity. There are also independent arguments in favour of ensuring the **maintenance** of each existing language and culture within the nation- state as opposed to eliminating multilingualism and multiculturalism by the instrumentality of ideological cultural assimilation and **linguistic genocide.** These are discussed in the UNESCO articles on linguistic diversity as well as in most of the articles on revitalisation cited above. They have been discussed in detail in Chumbow (2009) but will be summarised briefly here in view of their relevance to subsequent discussion of our model of language planning for a

**Multilingualism is the norm and monolingualism, the exception, globally.**

 **The languages of a nation are its natural resources** (on the same level as its cocoa, coffee, gold, diamond or petroleum, etc). Like all natural resources, they have to be (planned, developed) exploited in order to be effectively and profitably used for

 **The co-existence of two or more languages is rarely in itself the cause of tension, conflict, disunity and war.** On the contrary, historical evidence shows that it is economic, political and religious factors that cause conflict, tension and war (Fishman

 **Language is a historical heritage and is consequently a repository of the history of humanity.** If one language disappears, a world vision of mankind is lost and the world

**Language is an element and a vector of culture.** (Nettle and Romaine 2002:114)**.** The

 **Language is an intimate means of personal identity.** Language loss amounts to a loss

 **Language is a right; a human right of the same level of importance as all other inalienable human rights.** All languages have the right to be developed and used by those who speak them for their own development. All forms of linguistic discrimination should therefore be fought and countered (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1995)**.** 

loss of a language amounts to the loss of irreplaceable cultural monuments.

Renaissance (AU 2006a and the Language Plan of Action for Africa (AU 2006b).

**2.3 Arguments in favour of linguistic diversity and pluralism** 

Grenoble and whaley 1998, Nettle and Romaine 2000, Mkude 2001, Crystal 2000, Mufwene 2001,2004, Batibo 2005 and Chumbow 2009 and 2011a among others). To prevent endangered languages from dying, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure their **maintenance** by way of **revitalisation** or the process of re-enforcing their vitality ( Cantoni 1965, Landwear 1990, Fishman 1991, 2001a,b, Romaine 2002,UNESCO 2003a, Chia 2006, Grenoble and Whaley 2006, Skutnabb –Kangas 2011, Kan Yagmur and Ehala 2011, Zaidi 2011, Ojongkpot 2012 among others).

Not everyone accepts the virtues of maintaining and cultivating linguistic diversity by undertaking a systematic implementation of revitalisation processes to ensure linguistic diversity and multicultural pluralism. As mentioned in Chumbow 2009, two conflicting ideological positions arise with respect to language diversity and language maintenance which we characterise below:

#### **2.1 Nation building by way of assimilation**

This is an ideological paradigm which favours the replacement of minority languages and cultures by a majority **dominant** language and culture. Linguistic and cultural assimilation is a process whose finality (within the context of a hidden or open agenda), is the loss or death of the minority languages and cultures, usually within the space of three generations. Underlying the paradigm of linguistic and cultural assimilation is what Gogolin1994 (cited by Benson 2011) calls the **monolingual habitus;** that is, the (un)conscious belief in the uniformity of languages and cultures in a nation state or *a one nation one language* credo.

Cultural assimilation may be conscious and planned, and therefore **ideological**. It may be unconscious and unplanned in which case it cannot be said to be ideological. Cultural assimilation whether ideological or not, is the result of the unfavourable balance of power against the minority language and culture. The **dominant** language and culture usually assimilates the *weaker* language, where **dominance** is determined by such factors as the prestige status of the language, the number of **valorising functions** (economically viable domains in which the language is used), etc. (See interalia, Chumbow 2008).

From the ideological perspective, cultural assimilation may be and is often used as an instrument of power to ensure the hegemonic domination of a cultural group by another or as an instrument to counter linguistic diversity and multiculturalism. Whereas cultural assimilation as an instrument of power may be dismissed as an agency to impose cultural and linguistic imperialism, the instrumentalisation of cultural assimilation to counter cultural and linguistic diversity is rationalised by the assertion that multilingualism and multiculturalism are sources of socio-economic inequalities. Some proponents and adepts of linguistic and cultural assimilation rationalise their position by the assertion that the assimilation of cultural minorities by the cultural majority is in reality, doing the former a favour, because the minority now can join the majority group and cease to be stigmatised and disadvantaged as a minority group. Thus, ideologically, assimilation is the instrument by which multilingual and multicultural communities can become monolingual and mono-cultural voluntarily or involuntarily as an outcome of cultural and linguistic imperialism.

#### **2.2 Nation building by way of pluralism**

326 Social Sciences and Cultural Studies – Issues of Language, Public Opinion, Education and Welfare

Grenoble and whaley 1998, Nettle and Romaine 2000, Mkude 2001, Crystal 2000, Mufwene 2001,2004, Batibo 2005 and Chumbow 2009 and 2011a among others). To prevent endangered languages from dying, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure their **maintenance** by way of **revitalisation** or the process of re-enforcing their vitality ( Cantoni 1965, Landwear 1990, Fishman 1991, 2001a,b, Romaine 2002,UNESCO 2003a, Chia 2006, Grenoble and Whaley 2006, Skutnabb –Kangas 2011, Kan Yagmur and Ehala 2011, Zaidi

Not everyone accepts the virtues of maintaining and cultivating linguistic diversity by undertaking a systematic implementation of revitalisation processes to ensure linguistic diversity and multicultural pluralism. As mentioned in Chumbow 2009, two conflicting ideological positions arise with respect to language diversity and language maintenance

This is an ideological paradigm which favours the replacement of minority languages and cultures by a majority **dominant** language and culture. Linguistic and cultural assimilation is a process whose finality (within the context of a hidden or open agenda), is the loss or death of the minority languages and cultures, usually within the space of three generations. Underlying the paradigm of linguistic and cultural assimilation is what Gogolin1994 (cited by Benson 2011) calls the **monolingual habitus;** that is, the (un)conscious belief in the uniformity of languages and cultures in a nation state or *a one* 

Cultural assimilation may be conscious and planned, and therefore **ideological**. It may be unconscious and unplanned in which case it cannot be said to be ideological. Cultural assimilation whether ideological or not, is the result of the unfavourable balance of power against the minority language and culture. The **dominant** language and culture usually assimilates the *weaker* language, where **dominance** is determined by such factors as the prestige status of the language, the number of **valorising functions** (economically viable

From the ideological perspective, cultural assimilation may be and is often used as an instrument of power to ensure the hegemonic domination of a cultural group by another or as an instrument to counter linguistic diversity and multiculturalism. Whereas cultural assimilation as an instrument of power may be dismissed as an agency to impose cultural and linguistic imperialism, the instrumentalisation of cultural assimilation to counter cultural and linguistic diversity is rationalised by the assertion that multilingualism and multiculturalism are sources of socio-economic inequalities. Some proponents and adepts of linguistic and cultural assimilation rationalise their position by the assertion that the assimilation of cultural minorities by the cultural majority is in reality, doing the former a favour, because the minority now can join the majority group and cease to be stigmatised and disadvantaged as a minority group. Thus, ideologically, assimilation is the instrument by which multilingual and multicultural communities can become monolingual and mono-cultural voluntarily or involuntarily as an outcome of cultural

domains in which the language is used), etc. (See interalia, Chumbow 2008).

2011, Ojongkpot 2012 among others).

**2.1 Nation building by way of assimilation** 

which we characterise below:

*nation one language* credo.

and linguistic imperialism.

This is an ideological paradigm which seeks to maintain and develop each linguistic and cultural heritage within the nation-state as a core consideration in the enterprise of nationalism and nation building. Such an ideology, naturally favours linguistic diversity, multilingualism and the pluralism of cultures.

As underscored in Chumbow 2010b and 2011a, pluralism is patently the more dominant paradigm in the face of UNESCO positions in favour of linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism (UNESCO 2003a, b, c) as well as the African Union's Charter of Cultural Renaissance (AU 2006a and the Language Plan of Action for Africa (AU 2006b).

#### **2.3 Arguments in favour of linguistic diversity and pluralism**

If the UNESCO's position enjoys an ascendency that results in the dominance of the Pluralism paradigm which is fast becoming the object of a global agenda, it is precisely because of the intrinsic appeal of favourable fundamental arguments of a factual nature. Justification for cultural pluralism comes first from the incontrovertible facts of linguistic and cultural diversity. There are also independent arguments in favour of ensuring the **maintenance** of each existing language and culture within the nation- state as opposed to eliminating multilingualism and multiculturalism by the instrumentality of ideological cultural assimilation and **linguistic genocide.** These are discussed in the UNESCO articles on linguistic diversity as well as in most of the articles on revitalisation cited above. They have been discussed in detail in Chumbow (2009) but will be summarised briefly here in view of their relevance to subsequent discussion of our model of language planning for a multilingual setting.


The Challenge of Linguistic Diversity and Pluralism:

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

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

language.

The Tier Stratification Model of Language Planning in a Multilingual Setting 329

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

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 his/her ego and innermost thoughts.

#### **2.4 Linguistic diversity and language management**

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 and polarise ethno linguistic communities within the nation- state

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 and national development of all the different communities.

We propose, characterise and motivate below, a model for language planning and management in a multilingual situation..
