Mozambique is the theme of the Honors Seminar I’m taking this semester at Wayne State. The country was colonized by the Portuguese in the 1500′s, and in 1975 the country gained independence – headed by the mobilization efforts of FRELIMO (Front for the Liberation of Mozambique). Although the Frelimo bunch was trying to create a paradigm shift away from the oppressiveness of Portuguese colonizers, the official language for the new Republica de Moçambique, as the name suggests, was still Portuguese.
Why identify with the “oppressor” in such an basic and personal way?
Mozambique has a history of indigenous language repression and educational policies that contributed to the loss of prestige of many native Mozambican tongues. The Portuguese colonizers referred to native languages as “Dogs’ Languages” (Kitoko-Nsiku) and propagated language ideologies that demeaned the native languages while valuing Portuguese as linguistically superior.
Question begets question: Just what is the status of indigenous languages in Mozambique? Are there a lot, or do most people speak Portuguese?
To give examples of how prevalent native languages are, in the 1997 census Emakhuwa was the first language of 26% of the population and also the primary language spoken in the home for 26% of the population. In the same census year, 14.4% of the population spoke Xichangana as a first language and 11.3% used it in the home (Lopes, Census). As of 1980, less than 25% of Mozambicans spoke Portuguese fluently and only 1.2% of Mozambicans spoke Portuguese as a first language (Mkuti).
I am interested in studying why native languages in Mozambique appear to still suffer from low social prestige even after national independence from the Portuguese, and considering their overwhelming and undisputed presence in Mozambican society. Throughout the course of this seminar, I hope to understand the language ideologies and policies that keep native languages from achieving official status in Mozambique, and the attitudes of Mozambicans toward the official inclusion/exclusion of their native languages.
Which brings me to…language ideology:
Language ideology has been defined as a set “of beliefs about language articulated by users” of that language (Silverstein). These beliefs may affect language standards for writing and official discourse, usage of other languages and dialects in society and “correctness” in speech, among other things. When language ideologies target certain linguistic groups negatively while simultaneously elevating the status of others, they can cause extreme social tension and frustrate aims at social equality. Because a person’s identity is deeply tied to the language that they express themselves in, an ideology that devalues a given language may be considered a judgment on the social worth of its speakers as well.
Examples of language ideology in the US are views that Spanglish and code-switching between English and another language are inherently inferior communicative vehicles, negative or denigratory ideas about dialects, speechways etc. Think about how some Americans view African-American (Vernacular) English, Southern English or Creole English varieties like Jamaican or Geechee.
There are many written resources that I can draw upon to support this study. However, I’m still not sure what direction I want the final product of my interest in the topic to take.
I could create a multimedia presentation with video and photo montages, put to a background of Mozambican music/indigenous spoken dialogue.
I could write a paper, but that’s a little fome.
Eventually I’ll figure out what I can do. I’ve always loved photography, the written word… I hope that the final product refreshes the dialogue on language ideology and treatment of indigenous languages.
Some sources
Kitoko-Nsiku, Edouard. “Dog’s Languages or People’s Languages? The Return of Bantu Languages to Primary Schools in Mozambique.” Current Issues in Language Planning. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2007, 258-282.
Lopes, A.J. “The Language Situation in Mozambique.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol. 19, Issue 5, September 1998, 440 – 486.
Mkuti, Lukas Dominikus. “Language and Education in Mozambique Since 1940: Policy, Implementation, and Future Perspectives.” Doctoral Dissertation. University of Arizona. 1996.
Mozambican census, 1997. http://www.ine.gov.mz/censos_dir/recenseamento_geral/censo97_resultados.ppt
Silverstein, Michael. “Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology.” The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Eds, Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks, and Carol L. Hofbauer. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 1979. 193-247.
Peter Chanesa
11/05/2009
Hi,
I liked the topic on this blog.
Especially your concern as I quote what you wrote; “Why identify with the “oppressor” in such an basic and personal way?”
I don’t if so far you got the answer to this question.
Generally up to now, I have learnt that the Portuguese language was and seems still be a unifying tool despite being the once oppressors’ tool as well.
As you also pointed out that there are so many languages all over the country and why Portuguese.
I am of the opinion that neither Macua (or Emakhuwa) nor Xichangana could easily be accepted by the rest of the population from other provinces. It needs a lot of work to overcome things like egocentrism. Some sociolingusits also defend that no language is superior to others.
May be what the government should have done long time was to encourage/adopting system to study the local languages along with Portuguese. It’s being implemented now, but there parents who may not encourage their own children to learn local languages, it’s a crazy situation……
Author
11/19/2009
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the comment. After having made this post I read Christopher Stroud’s chapter: “Portuguese as ideology and politics in Mozambique: Semiotic (re)constructions of a postcolony” in the book “Language Ideological Debates”.
He addresses some of the reasons why Frelimo was successful in creating an unshakable cloud of legitimacy around Portuguese. Portuguese became synonymous with allegiance to the flag. It was considered helping the liberation efforts to learn Portuguese, and essentially working against the state to continue speaking the national languages.
Edicts were issued to speak Portuguese in public places and official encounters. Letters to the editor in popular publications of the time (post-revolution), like Tempo, expressed disgust for people speaking national languages in public.
With this kind of social pressure, and rhetoric supporting a ‘clearer, better’ Portuguese, how could anyone dare suggest another language? The social shame would have been overwhelming.
I agree with you that parallel literacy campaigns for local languages should have been supported by the government a long time ago. They should also be encouraging development and codification of these languages, but instead NELIMO has been discontinued as a center because of lack of funding and human resources.
Could I ask you where you have seen local languages being implemented alongside Portuguese? It would be useful to me for my undergrad research. :)
Mkuti, Lukas
12/05/2009
Good for you.
Lukas
Author
12/05/2009
Thank you Lukas, I admire your work!
Best Regards – Hannah
Jessi
12/16/2009
I am so excited to find your work Hannah, can I ask what got you interested in Mozambique? I am actually from the Detroit area but did Peace Corps in Mozambique for 3 years.
They have recently started using indigenous languages in primary school but there is a lack of resources and proper training of the teachers.
Phillip Pare
11/09/2010
Please keep me updated as your work progresses.
Please also consider promoting machine translation ( http://translate.google.co.za ) into the local languages as well as the development of wikipedias in these languages. My interest is particularly with a South African language, Northern Sotho or Sesotho sa Leboa. We have established a provisional wikipedia at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nso/Letlakala_la_Pele.