**Section 6**

**Multilingual Settings and Integration** 

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

Department of General Services (2001).Preliminary analysis of potential reuse and relocation

Kenyon, G. & Randall, W. (1997*). Restorying our lives: Personal growth through autobiographical* 

McAdams, D. (2006). The redemptive self: Generativity and the stories Americans live by,

McAdams, D. & Bowman, P. (2001). Narrating life's turning points: Redemption and

Pew Center on the States (2010). Prison count 2010. The Pew Charitable Trust. Retrieved on

United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010). *Prisoners in 2010*. Washington D.C.: United

http://www.pewcenterforthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Prison\_Count\_2010.pdf. San Quentin State Prison (2009). *Institutional statistics*. Sacramento, CA: California

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2010/11/04/BA2FIG6GNV.DTL

contamination. In D. McAdams, R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), *Turns in the road: Narrative studies of lives in transition* (pp. 3-34). Washington: American Psychological

 www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/legi/publications/2001/reports/preliminary.html Cohler, B. (1982). Personal narrative and the life course. In P. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), *Lifespan development and behavior* (pp. 205-241). New York Academic. Egelko, B. (2010). Back in prison in three years, San Francisco Chronicle, November 4, 2010.

of San Quentin. State of California. Retrieved February 2, 2011:

McAdams, D. (1985). *Power, intimacy and life story*. New York: Guilford.

*Research in Human development,* 3(2 & 3), 81-100.

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Schacter, D. (1996). *Searching for memory*. New York: Basic Books.

States Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Retrieved on November 4, 2010 at:

*reflection*. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Association.

January 22, 2010:

**17**

*Cameroon* 

Beban Sammy Chumbow *University of Yaounde 1 and Cameroon Academy of Sciences* 

**The Challenge of Linguistic Diversity and** 

**Pluralism: The Tier Stratification Model of** 

**Language Planning in a Multilingual Setting** 

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

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

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,

**1. Introduction** 

2009)

nation.

**2. Linguistic diversity and ideology paradigms** 
