LANGUAGE AND LITERACY POLICIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: TOWARDS A

BILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICY IN ANGOLA

By

NICOLAU NKIAWETE MANUEL

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Teaching and Learning

MAY 2015

© Copyright by NICOLAU NKIAWETE MANUEL, 2015

All Rights Reserved
© Copyright by NICOLAU NKIAWETE MANUEL, 2015
All Rights Reserved
To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the

dissertation of NICOLAU NKIAWETE MANUEL find it satisfactory and recommend that
it be accepted.

____________________________________
Pamela Jean Bettis, Ph.D., Chair

_____________________________________
David Cassels Johnson, Ph.D.

_____________________________________
Paula Groves Price, Ph.D.

_____________________________________
Olusola Adesope, Ph.D.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance,

patience, and dedication of my supervisors, Dr. Pamela J. Bettis and Dr. David C. Johnson, who

devoted their time and energy to help me understand the mechanics and knowledge of

dissertation writing. My special thanks go to Dr. Paula Groves Price who believed in me and

granted me an assistantship with the Western Journal of Black Studies and Dr. David C. Johnson

who passionately provided critical insights that shaped this project since the beginning. I am

equally thankful to the members my dissertation committee, namely Dr. Olusola Adesope and

Dr. Paula G. Price for their support and insights. I am indebted to my family, my mother Isabel

Nkengue Nlandu, mama Isabel Mambu Wankaya, my sisters Margarida Manuel (Maguy),

Georgette Manuel, Bankwansambu Rosita, Teresa Kwanzambi for their prayers, love, and

support.

I am most grateful to all the participants for their time and for providing the rich insights

that helped to answer the research questions addressed in this dissertation. Additionally, I would

like to thank my friends and brothers Pedro Mussungo Panzo and Francisco Mateta, for their

love and support. I am thankful to brother Ahmed Aghalli Omaar for his unconditional love,

support, and patience during the years of my study. I am also indebted to my friend and

colleague Adam Attwood for his insights and support during my studies. Last but not least, I

thank Douglas Hoston Jr., (Sage) for his support. My thanks are extended to the faculty in the

cultural studies program, Dr. Johnny Lupinacci and Dr. A. G. Rud and the cultural studies cohort

for their support during my program of study. I am most grateful to the chair, faculty, and staff in

the Department of Teaching and Learning for their support and caring.

iii
 LANGUAGE AND LITERACY POLICIES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: TOWARDS A

BILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION POLICY IN ANGOLA

Abstract

by Nicolau Nkiawete Manuel, Ph.D.

Washington State University
May 2015

Chair: Pamela J. Bettis

Recently the Angolan government piloted a new language policy that will introduce six

African languages as media of instruction into the school system from first through third grade.

Using Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis three dimensional framework, Foucault’s discourse

insights and the theoretical tools developed in linguistic anthropology, this study conducted a

discursive and linguistic analysis of Angolan language policy discourses. The study

conceptualized language education policy as involving struggles, negotiations, and

compromise— language policy as a hegemonic, symbolic, and discursive act that is socially,

historically, and politically situated and involving various actors and social agents. The purpose

of this study was to question and problematize the above mentioned language policy and

examine the attitudes, beliefs, ideologies, and discursive practices of a variety of social agents

including parents, students, teachers, administrators and policy-makers; and the socio-historical

conditions that have shaped this policy. Another purpose of this study was, to use the findings

and the insights from best practices in second language and bilingual pedagogy to propose

alternative avenues for the ongoing language education reform. The findings demonstrated that

the various cultural and discursive practices are dynamic, locally, and contextually situated.

iv
 This dynamic created tension between the local and the global discursive practices,

specifically between the discourses of national unity, English as a global language and African

indigenous languages as the languages of cultural identity and heritage. The findings also

revealed that the choices of language of instruction and use are embedded in economic, political,

and ideological interests of the various social groups. Parents, teachers, linguists, and policy-

makers alike, recognized the advantages of bilingual education. However, entrenched negative

attitudes, the high status, and the prestige attached to Portuguese and English pose additional

challenges for the promotion of African languages in education and social life. The findings also

suggested the need to challenge positions of power and privilege that are reinforced by the use

of disciplinary knowledge in the domains of language teaching and learning. In conclusion, the

findings suggested that top-down and bottom up processes should work in tandem to promote an

inclusive language policy towards, bilingualism, and linguistic diversity.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... iv-v

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ xi

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER

1. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM...................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................3

The Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................4

Qualitative Research:Philosophical Considerations ................................................5

Critical Discourse Analysis......................................................................................6

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................7

Researcher Positionality.........................................................................................11

The Significance of the Study ................................................................................14

Overview of the Dissertation .................................................................................15

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................18

Language planning and language policy................................................................18

Language Policy Perspectives………………………………………………. 21

Critical language policy .................................................................................21

Ecological language policy ...........................................................................23

vi
 Linguistic human rights approach .................................................................26

Language policy as text and discourse...........................................................28

Bilingual Education Research: Overview ..............................................................33

Language Planning and Literacy ...........................................................................38

Critical literacy……………………………………………………………...40

Language Ideology.................................................................................................42

Language Attitudes ................................................................................................48

3. THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ........................................................................55

Language Planning and Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa .........................................55

Colonial language policy ...............................................................................57

Postcolonial language policy .........................................................................60

Bilingual education programs in Sub-Saharan Africa ...................................71

Language Policy in Angola ....................................................................................77

Sociolinguistic overview ................................................................................77

Colonial language policy in Angola ………………………………………..80

The status agenda in LPP debate in Angola..................................................81

The Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord and the PALOPs ...........................84

Cultural discourses and ideological debates .................................................86

The challenges of the orthographic accord: The way forward .....................90

4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................92

Setting and Participants..........................................................................................92

Methods..................................................................................................................95

vii
 Data Sources ..........................................................................................................98

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................100

Tools for analysis .........................................................................................101

Intertextuality and interdiscursivity .............................................................105

Interviews……………………………………………………………………….110

Procedures………………………………………………………………………112

Semi-structured interviews .........................................................................112

Coding ..................................................................................................................113

Ensuring Validity .................................................................................................116

Ethical Considerations .........................................................................................117

Limitations ...........................................................................................................118

5. DATA ANALYIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ........................................120

Findings................................................................................................................122

Analysis of linguistic features of Text .........................................................122

Intertextual and interdiscursive analysis ......................................................146

Discussion ............................................................................................................150

The way forward ..................................................................................................158

6. TOWARDS A BILINGUAL EDUCATION POLICY .......................................159

Suggested Potential Bilingual Education Models ................................................162

Language Education Policy Legal Framework ....................................................164

Intervening Actors ...............................................................................................166

Teacher Training ..................................................................................................167

viii
 Cross-regional Efforts ..........................................................................................175

Educational Leadership ........................................................................................176

The Need for Research.........................................................................................178

Institutional Support.............................................................................................180

The Role of Media ..............................................................................................182

Parents, Communities and the Civil Society .......................................................184

Concluding Remarks ...........................................................................................187

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................194

APPENDIX

A. Interview Protocol .......................................................................................................280

B. People and the National Languages of Angola ..........................................................289

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Typology of Bilingual Education Program Models: Summary ....................................34

2. Countries with one African indigenous Language Spoken by the vast Majority .........65

3. Countries with one Predominant African language ......................................................65

4. Countries with Several Indigenous Languages Competing with one Another .............66

5. Typology of Language Policies in sub-Saharan Africa ..............................................66

6. MT and Bilingual Education Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa ....................................76

7. Genetic Classification of African Languages and Domains of Use ...........................79

8. Participants’ Demographic Facts ..................................................................................94

9. Data Sources .................................................................................................................99

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACLAN- African Academy of Languages

ADEA- Association for the Development of Education in Africa

ANBBE- Angolan National Board for Bilingual Education

AoA- Age of Acquisition

AVP- Angolan Variety of Portuguese

CPLP- Community of Portuguese Language Speaking Countries

L1- First Language

L2- Second Language

LoI-Language of Instruction

LoT- Language of Teaching

LP-Language policy

LPP- Language Planning and Policy

LWC- Language of Wider Communication

MoE-Ministry of Education

MoI- Medium of instruction

MTBE- Mother Tongue Bilingual Education

MT-Mother Tongue

PALOPs- African Countries with Portuguese as Official Language

RBEB-Regional Bilingual Education Board

SSA- Sub-Saharan Africa

UNESCO- United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

xi
 Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my late father Lima Manuel. Where he is, I know he is

proud of what I have accomplished. This piece of work is specially dedicated to my daugther

Nicandrova Daisy Lima Monteiro Manuel (Nicky) for her understanding and patience, to my

mother Isabel Nkenge Landu (Mama Bela) and my siblings, brother Manuel Diabanza, sisters

Maguy Lima, Georgette Lima, Rosita Bankwansambu,Teresa Kwanzambi, and Lina Solange for

their prayers, love, understanding, and patience during all the years of my absence.

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

Across Africa, particularly in Francophone and Lusophone (Portuguese speaking) Africa,

current language education policy models have not resulted in desirable outcomes (Wolff, 2006,

2011). As a result, African nations are mobilizing to address the issue of language of instruction

through bilingual language policies. Since the successful experiment named the Ile-Ife project in

Nigeria (Bamgbose, 1991) there have been reports of successful mother tongue education

programs in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Akinnaso 1993; Alidou et al., 2006; Ouane, 2003a,

2003b, 2003c). Many African sociolinguists (Alexander, 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009; Bamgbose,

1991, 2004; Omoniyi, 2007; Webb, 2009) advocate for greater use of African languages, on the

grounds that successful learning takes place when students are taught in the language they

understand the most (Auerbach, 1993; Cummins, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 1997) and that the

consolidation of learners’ mother tongue facilitates second language acquisition (Cummins,

1979, 1999).

In Angola, despite the fact that the Portuguese language has become the mother tongue

of many, the majority of Angolans continue to use African languages in everyday transactions

(P. Sassuco, personal communication, January 25, 2014). Indiscriminate use of Portuguese as the

only language of instruction nationwide has resulted in school failure for children whose first

language is not Portuguese (Government of Angola, 2008). More recently, the government

through the Ministry of Education (MoE) is promoting a language policy with an ongoing

experimental project in six national languages, namely Kimbundu, Umbundu, Kikongo, Cokwe,

Kwanyama, and Ngagela respectively (See Appendix B). For a country that has maintained a

1
monolingual education system for about 32 years, the new policy may be a milestone

achievement that may lead to the consolidation of democracy and the promotion of an equitable

education system in Angola.

However, despite the accumulating evidence and consensus from research and practice

that additive and enrichment bilingual programs are better positioned to promote the

maintenance of indigenous languages and sustainable national integration of cultural groups

(Hornberger, 1998), the new Angolan language policy promotes early exit transitional bilingual

education. Transitional bilingual programs consist of minority students learning through their

mother tongue for at least one to three years and after that they transition into the dominant

language. The main goal of this program is to assimilate students into the dominant language of

instruction (Ferguson, 2006, 2013; Johnson, 2004). Given that Angola is a multilingual country

such restrictive language policy may not only reinforce linguistic differentiation, but also deny

certain linguistic groups the right to request that their children’s mother tongue be integrated into

their public education benefiting the linguistic, cognitive and social development of the learners.

Moreover, the current language policy presents limitations that deserve particular

attention. First, such policy is being promoted by the media without the participation of language

educators and the communities that are supposed to benefit from it. According to Ricento and

Hornberger (1996), attempts to change existing policies or implement new ones without the

inclusion of the affected parties have little chance to succeed. Second, existing language

statements in the Constitution and Lei de base do sistema de educação (basic education law),

and other legal documents lack clear goals on what is to be accomplished through a language and

2
literacy policy that only intends to promote African languages with the purpose of preserving

cultural heritage that has been contested (Blackledge & Creese, 2008).

I argue that bilingual language policy has not only cultural heritage values, but also

cognitive development benefits and pedagogical implications (Adesope, Lavin, Thompson &

Ungerleider, 2010; Cummins, 2001; Hakuta, 1986, 2011; Hakuta, Bialystok & Wiley, 2003). In a

multilingual society such as Angola, any language policy that aims at promoting acquisition

planning (Cooper, 1989; Haugen, 1972), cultivation (Spolsky, 2004) or language management

(Spolsky, 2009), needs to take into account not only the ecology in which language use takes

place, but also the underpinnings of bilingual education and its implications for learners’

cognitive development (Ben –Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 2001, 2007; 2009; Cummins,1979, 1998,

2000, 2001; De Jong, 2002; Lanauze & Snow,1989; Kroll,1994, 2009). Obviously bilingual

education alone will not solve the problems that many children are facing in schools. Apple and

Lois (1983) note that the problem of education is an ideological one and it involves the struggle

of forces, ideas and knowledge. As an element of social policy, language education policies are

embedded in power dynamics that involve socio-cultural, economic, and political factors.

Statement of the Problem

Although, there is a vast body of bilingual education literature for SSA, literature and

research on bilingual education in Angola is not extant. Further, a plethora of studies has drawn

attention to the importance of language in social life, and language in education policies in

Africa (Akinaso, 1991; Bamgbose, 1991; Obondo, 2008; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Wolff, 2006,

2011). However, studies that address language policy, language planning and bilingual education

in Angola are scarce. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes, beliefs, and

3
ideologies that influence language use and language education policy discourse in Angola. This

study is an initiative that aims to contribute to the literature on language education policies and

bilingual education in Africa, and more specifically in Angola.

The Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

With this in mind, my goals were to examine the socio-historical, political, and

ideological context that has shaped language policy in Angola, and to trace the various discursive

practices, beliefs, and attitudes that shape and influence current language use and education

policies in Angola. Language policies are not only constituted by official acts and texts, but also

encompass unofficial interactions and discourses that work to perpetuate language statuses, uses

and choices (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996; McCarthy, 2011; Myers-Scotton, 2006). Using a

review of literature on language education policies and a sampling of current language policy,

excerpts from the constitution, media commentary, and interviews with parents, teachers,

educators, linguists and legislators, I analyzed the discursive contexts of national legislature,

local debates and discourses and how various agents interpret and negotiate these policies.

Empirical findings from this study provide insights that may lead to a new proposal of language

policy for Angola.

Another purpose of this study is to give the events some discursive form and tease out a

national debate conducive to the design of an effective, efficacious, and democratic language

education program aligned to the socio-cultural, economic, and political conjuncture of the

global era. Therefore my research questions are: (1) What are the discursive practices that have

given rise to current educational language planning and policy in Angola? (2) what socio-

historical conditions and discourses led to the current language ecology situation? (3) how do the

4
various discourses on language and culture impact the choice of language of instruction in

Angola? (4) how do the various actors and agents (legislators, parents, language teachers,

language learners, and language scholars) understand current language policies, specifically

those that introduce African languages into the Angolan education system?

Qualitative Research: Philosophical Considerations

Depending on the goal and nature of research the assumptions that researchers make are

established by certain philosophical traditions, which provide the epistemological and

ontological premises that guide the research process (Chilisa, 2012; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).

Although these assumptions are not always evident, they nevertheless influence the whole

practice of research (Creswell, 2007). My goal is to understand the complicated dynamics and

discourses of Angolan education language policy. Since I operate from a critical research

paradigm, my goal is not only to understand how language policy discourses operate in Angola,

but also to facilitate change. Because this research project is siuated in a critical discourse

analysis approach, I drew from the assumptions that undergird the critical and poststructural

paradigms of research. The goal of the critical research paradigm is to change society to create a

more just and equitable social world. This is the goal that this research project aspires: to help

facilitate a more just and equitable language policy in Angola.

Philosophical assumptions are normally combines with research paradigms (strategies)

and methods that drive the research process— a theoretical framework. Qualitative research is a

multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research that draws from many different philosophical

traditions. Ontologically and epistemologically this study builds upon the philosophical tradition

of interpretivism and constructionism. Interpretivism is philosophical tradition that builds on

5
phenomenology and hermeneutics. Studies that draw form interpretivism seek to understand the

world, people’s life experiences, and social institutions (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011).

Associating with the above philosophical currents, the author recognizes that the

researcher needs to interrogate his/her own position —how his/her own ideological bias and

experience might influence the research process (Lincoln, Linham & Guba, 2011). Another goal

of this research is to interpret and lay bare the material practices that construct knowledge/

power. In this context, language policy is viewed as a discursive and symbolic artifact that is

socially, culturally, ideologically, and historically situated.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Although CDA is a well-established discipline within social science research, it is

consensual among critical discourse scholars that that CDA is not a bounded and discrete

academic discipline with ‘objective’ and fixed research methods (Fairclough, Muldering &

Wodak, 2011). CDA is an analytical perspective with the focus on how “social power,

dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced, resisted in texts ranging from news reports,

political addresses and institutional mandates to everyday conversation” (Schiffrin, 2004, p. 96),

and all even mundane language that people take for granted. It should, however, be stressed that

similar to Poststructuralism (Gupta & Ferguson, 2001), critical discourse analysis is not a

monolithic perspective In other words, there are many tendencies within the research that draws

from critical discourse analysis understandings of language, discourse, power and society. As

mentioned earlier, critical discourse analysis and poststructuralist theory are a reaction to

structuralist approaches to linguistics, which foreground the view that, as a meaning-making

system, language provides us with the fixed and objective understanding of the outside world;

6
that is a reality that can objectively be apprehended (Barthes, 1972; Derrida, 1967; Foucault,

1972).

However, the core assumptions in language/discourse poststructuralist thought is not only

the deconstruction of language categories, but also the analysis of discursive formation and the

field relations that emanate from them (Foucault, 1990a). In this perspective, social relations are

historically and culturally conditioned. Discourse generates power and subjectivity. In other

words, individuals are constituted and shaped in their conduct, thinking, speaking by the power

of the discursively produced categories (Busch, 2012). This theorizing of language activity

recognizes that structures exist within the difference and that they are temporarily and spatially

fluid and sometimes contradictory. In doing so, poststructuralist analysis underscores the role of

human agency and the fluidity of human subjectivity.

Theoretical Framework

The use of the term discourse has been an issue of concern not only among language

scholars, but also among those who use discourse analysis as an area of research in social

sciences (cultural studies, language policy, educational linguistics, linguistic anthropology,

discursive psychology, conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, applied linguistics,

etc.). Discourse is a term that has been defined in many different ways in these various areas of

study. Given that the term discourse has its roots in mainstream linguistics, it makes sense to

start with a definition of discourse that has linguistics flavor, to be sure, sociolinguistics.

Jaworski and Coupland (1999), define discourse as follows:

a means of talking and writing about and acting upon worlds, a means which both

constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these worlds, and in so

7
 doing both reproduces and constructs afresh particular social-discursive practices,

constrained or encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching social

formation. (p. 2)

In other words, the definition above suggests discourse as a dialectical process embedded

in power relationships. It is through the interactions and actions of social agents that discursive

practices are produced, negotiated and recontextualized (Bernstein, 1990; Chouliaraki &

Fairclough, 1999), sometimes giving way to new discursive practices. In this sense, discourse is

seen as a reflexive practice. Fairclough (2010) notes that it is through such recontextualization

that discourse enter and shape social processes and practices.

CDA provides the theoretical tools and method for empirical study and articulation of the

relations between discourse and social and cultural developments in different domains of social

life (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Unlike the positivist rigid conceptualization of theory and

method, CDA as theory and method foregrounds the interpretative qualitative epistemologies to

which I subscribe. As a method and theory, CDA foregrounds the view that discourse is a social

practice which is constitutive and constituted. CDA spouses the philosophical assumptions of

interpretive qualitative research which recognizes that the results of one research constitute only

one interpretation among many possible interpretations (Cresswell, 2007, 2014).

I used Foucault’s discourse insights in order to illuminate how power circulates in the

discursive field and problematize the socio-historical conditions of language policy creation in

Angola. The strength of Foucault’s discourse insights is that, they illuminate how policy

discourses are embedded in dynamic power relations that at times may produce and reproduce

contradictory opinions, ideologies, attitudes, and perceptions of language policy. Foucault’s view

8
of discourse and power is crucial to the discursive policy analysis because it sheds light on the

multiplicity of ways in which power is manifested in the policy field though discursive practices.

According to Foucault (1990) power is not owned by anyone, but it is manifest in the

multiplicity of relations. Power relations are mediated by and situated within the socio-cultural

and discursive practices characterized by struggles, contradictions, and conflict between and

within discourses (Hewitt, 2009).

According to Foucault (1972) the relations between discourse events are not necessarily

of unity; rather the intertextuality formation can also be characterized by dispersion,

contradiction and conflict. Intertextual analysis is grounded in social-historical context of

production, reception, appropriation and (re)contextualization of discursive events. In

emphasizing the sociocultural aspect of language policy “policy as discourse” (Bacchi, 2000;

Ball, 1993; Johnson, 2013b), I wish to assert that discursive practices and discourse formations

stem from and are embedded in symbolic and sociocultural practices that involve rituals and

institutions (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).

Moreover, intellectual insights and ideas from Foucault’s work provide the tools for

carrying a multidimensional analysis of the socio-historical conditions of policy creation and

how these have shaped the discursive practices and hegemonies that lead to the current

sociolinguistic situation in Angola. Fairclough’s framework is perhaps the most widely used in

CDA research. Although the term discourse is also used in different ways even within the CDA

research, the notions of ideology, power and hegemony are shared in most critical discourse

analysis research. In other words, ideology and power critique are some of the most important

9
concepts in critical discourse analysis (Coupland, 2010; Kroskrity, 2010; Thompson, 1990;

Woolard, 1998; Wortham, 2001).

Fairclough’s CDA framework is essentially grounded in historical change and how

discourse serves as technologies of power that structure and restructure social life by often

creating boundaries between what can and cannot be said (Ball, 1990). According to Fairclough

et al., (2011), CDA is a problem oriented, interdisciplinary research field which draws from

various approaches and disciplines. Foucault’s insights and Fairclough’s framework aligns with

the understanding of language policy as a multilayered process in which policy text (written and

spoken) is the product of language policy discourses and discursive practices that should be

analyzed with the three dimensions; that is, the context (institutions) in which discourses about

language use and language of instruction are situated (Johnson, 2013a). Fairclough’s three

dimensional framework of discourse analysis incorporates discourse and non-discursive aspects

(analysis of context, analysis of processes of text production and interpretation, analysis of text).

The essential features in Fairclough’s three dimensional frameworks (Fairclough, 1992b;

Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002) are: (1) Textual analysis within the field of linguistics, including

Halliday’s function grammar (modality, nominalization, passivization, repetitions, ellipsis); (2)

discursive practices: processes of production and interpretation; (3) macro-sociological analysis

of social practice, which also include the use of Foucault’ discourse theory and micro-

sociological analysis

In Fairclough’s framework, discourse helps to construct social identities, social relations,

system of knowledge, and meaning. Although Fairclough does not conduct a study of language

10
policy using the three dimensional framework, Johnson (2013b, p. 157) explains the three

dimensional framework within the context of language policy discourse analysis as follows:

Language policy texts can derive from official and unofficial language policy

language (Interview transcripts, media excerpts and talk with language policy actors,

personal communications, etc.). The production and interpretation of the policy texts

and discursive practices is multilayered. The interpretation of policy texts is a

dialogical process that involves the various interpretive resources. Such an

interpretation always takes into account the institutional context in which policy texts

and discourse practices emerge (Fairclough, 1995). Participants may take different

discursive positions within a discursive chain or order. The analysis of policy texts and

discourses through seeks to map the intertextual links between the macro-level and

micro-level discourses (interviews, media commentary and excerpts from policy

texts). The sociocultural context that includes the immediate situation in which

discourses are produced and enacted.

In these contexts, discourses are in dialogical relation with ideologies and social norms that

attempt to shape participants’ perspectives, perceptions, and attitudes about language use.

Researcher Positionality

The goal of this interpretive research was not only to grasp the layers of meaning that

make social relation possible, but also the historical and cultural location of discursive practices

(Reid, 2011). As a person whose early learning experiences were tremendously influenced by

language barriers, I come to this realm with a sense of wonder and discovery. Although

contribution to knowledge is the primary goal of research, practical significance is also of capital

11
importance. So, I am also interested in finding out how and why my own home language was

never valued in my schooling. Researcher positionality is a very important aspect given the

ethical issues that center on educational research that involves the use of interpretive qualitative

research methods (Creswell, 2007, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Eisner, 1991, 1998; Given,

2008; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Kvale, 1996; Peshkin, 1988; Seidman, 2006).

Being aware of my subjectivity may enhance my the interpretation of data in my study. In

Eisner’s (1998) words, each person’s world of experience is unique to that person. In other

words, the way one interpreter might perceive the phenomenon under study is particularly unique

to that person. As a newcomer into the realm of interpretive qualitative research, I am acutely

aware that from a poststructuralist perspective, interpretation “aims at the preservation of the

inherent metaphorical richness of the text, its polyvalent surplus of meaning, in order to avoid

the arbitrary reduction of polysemic meaning to a monolithic, all-embracing perspective”

(Gardiner, 1992, p. 131). The interpretive qualitative research aims at demystifying the symbolic

forces concealed in language and discourse in a dialogical and reflexive way. I therefore cannot

assume that I can rid myself of my own subjectivity (Peshkin, 1988).

Reflexivity is one of the most important ethical issues in qualitative research (Laine,

2000). Qualitative research prompts us (researchers) to understand ourselves in a reflexive

manner as individuals writing from a particular position and particular ideological vantage point

(Fine, 1994; Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005). Reflexivity entails being aware of my lived

experiences and how they may influence and shape the results of my research. Reflexivity also

encourages me, as researcher, to reflect on the ways I may be implicated in the findings of this

research. Reflexivity demands that the researcher be aware not only of his/her subjectivity, but

12
also reflect on the types of questions, the knowledge that these will eventually produce and the

interests that these may serve (Eisner, 1991; Willig, 2008). Finally, it is important to bear in

mind that reflexivity is a process that the researcher should maintain throughout the whole

research process from the selection of the topic to the process of writing the report. Reflexivity

requires the researcher to be explicit about the relationship with the research. My understanding

of reflexivity is that, as a researcher, I cannot separate myself from the discursive practices in the

field of policy creation, consumption, and implementation.

My interest to carry out this study stems from my experience as a learner, teacher and a

multilingual speaker. As a learner, in early years of school, I was forced to juggle between my

home language (Kikongo) and Portuguese, the only language of instruction in Angola. No one

was allowed to speak African languages within the school perimeter, let alone in the classroom.

As far as I can recall, it was a painful experience, mainly because we were all having many

difficulties in learning. My family and other families’ parents spoke only Kikongo, my mother

tongue. In my own family, the only person who had the opportunity to study Portuguese until 3rd

grade during the colonial time was, my father, who had passed away before my sixth birthday. In

other words, bilingual experience started early in my learning career.

During my studies overseas, I went through new learning experiences. During my stay in

Russian I have learned the Russian language, French and English. I mastered Spanish with my

Cuban teachers. It is in the course of my studies overseas that I became multilingual.

Nonetheless, I have developed a critical awareness of what learning in an unfamiliar language

means during my undergraduate studies in English language teaching (TESOL). Through

foundational learning theories, I learned how previously learned language or first language (L1)

13
affects second language (L2) learning. This process is called language transfer or linguistic

interference— positive and negative transfer, to be sure. It is important to note that interference

of L1 was normally portrayed as negative and undesirable in second language learning, that is, a

source of incorrect syntactic and morphological formulations (Gass & Silinker, 1983).

The significance of the study

As mentioned earlier, although research on the language question in SSA has grown

considerably in the last decades, I conducted a systematic searched in the most relevant language

planning and language policy journals and databases, namely the International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Journal of Language Policy, Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, Journal of Language and Identity in Education, ERIC database,

Linguistics Abstracts, Southern African Journal of Applied Studies, Journal for Language

Teaching, and I did not find any article regarding language planning and language education

policy in Angola. Interestingly enough, in Current Issues in Language Planning I found Vilela’s

(2002) article that discusses issues of language within the context of African countries with

Portuguese as an official language. However, from Google I found only two works that address

language policy in Angola. One is a master’s degree thesis and another is a doctoral dissertation.

From the above, it is clear that language planning and policy research in Angola is in its

embryonic stage.

Thus, this study will significantly contribute to the ongoing discussion not only on

language planning in general, but also on language education policy. Moreover, although the

studies mentioned above have significantly contributed to our understanding of the problems that

14
beleaguer the politics of language in Angola, both studies have addressed the existing problems

taking different perspectives. While the former advocates for African languages without

proposing alternative routes (Augusto, 2012), the latter argues for nationalization of Portuguese

in Angola (Nzau, 2011). Against this background, the integrative and holistic approach used in

this study may tease out a candid and inclusive national debate on language use and language

education reform in Angola.

Moreover, in the context of ongoing global transformations in education, bilingual

education has been mentioned to have the power to promote linguistic diversity and

multilingualism as a resource (Ruiz, 1984). In addition, because of the cognitive and

sociocultural benefits of bilingualism bilingual education has the power to address the consistent

problems of achievement that affect many children in schools (Genesee & Gándara, 1999;

Heller, 2007; Heugh, 2007, 2013; Thomas & Collier, 1997; Johnson, 2012). It is my hope that

the insights from this study will eventually help to tease out a national debate that may lead to

the design and implementation of sound language education programs in the country.

Overview of the Dissertation

Chapter one introduces the background information regarding the problem and the

context of the study as well as the purpose of the study and the research questions. This is

followed by the discussion of the qualitative research philosophical considerations that undergird

critical discourse analysis and post-structuiralist paradigms. Theoretical framework acquaints the

reader with the theoretical and philosophical assumptions of critical discourse analysis. Finally,

the chapter outlines the researcher’s positionality and the significance of the study.

15
 Chapter 2 provides a critical review of the literature on language planning and policy,

specifically the definitions by highlighting and contrasting the old conceptualization of LPP

with the recent theoretical perspectives and developments. A critical review of literature

indicated that despite the existence evidence about the importance of mother tongue bilingual

education, most contries in sub-Saharan Africa continue to privilege the use of Euro-languages

as medium of instruction through bilingual transitional models. In addition, literature review on

the link between LPP and literacy suggested the need to shift from traditional views of literacy to

critical literacy. It is argued that traditional views of literacy or autonomous models of literacy in

Street’s terms, downplay the sociocultural character of language learning and reading

instruction. Finally, the literature on language ideology and attitudes related to second language

learning and language policy was reviewed and discussed.

Chapter 3 details the context of study and provides a critical review of LPP in sub-

Saharan Africa. The literature on LPP in the Southern region of Africa suggested that most of the

countries in the region continue to promote transitional models, which to some extent hinder the

effective promotion of mother tongue instruction. The review of literature on the sociolinguistic

situation of Angola suggested the existence of language hierrarchization. Within the context of

the recent language planning and policy developments, the chapter highlights the fact that the

Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord which involves Angola and other Portuguese speaking

African countries represents reinforces monolingual culture that may undermine the development

of democratic education policy.

Chapter 4 presents the sources of data collection, methods of analysis and the procedures

as well as how the validity issue was dealt with in this study. Finally, the chapter outlines the

16
ethical issues, that is, how they were addressed in this study as well as the limitations and the

future research directions and the challenges ahead.

Chapter 5 addresses the research questions by providing a linguistic analysis of textual

features of the language education policy, participants interviews and media discourses under

consideration in chapter 4. This was followed by intertextual and interdiscursive analysis of

language policy discourses. Finally, the discussion of the findings demonstrated that Angolan

language policy discourses are influenced by colonial, transnational and globlal discourses. This

is demonstrated by the tensions between the ideology of mother tongue and the ideology of

Portuguese and the tensions between the local and the global. The chapter paves the way for

chapter 6 that presents a proposal for a bilingual education framework for Angola.

Based on the research questions and findings of this study as well as the theoretical

insights from research pertinent to second language learning and bilingual education, chapter 5

proposes a bilingual education policy framework that is sustained by a summary of literature

that sustains the underpinnings of bilingual and multilingual education policies. Finally, the

chapter provides the conclusions of the study and the implications of the findings in the context

of language policy in Angola.

17
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Language Planning and Policy (LPP)

With respect to language planning, various scholars have provided different definitions

for the same thing (Baldauf, 1994; Cooper, 1989; Fishman, 1974; Haugen, 1969; Neustupný,

1974; Tollefson, 1991). Cooper (1989), for example, defines language planning as a deliberate

effort of social institutions that aims at influencing the acquisition of language, language choice,

and language use. For Wiley (1996) language planning is the process that mediates policy

production and the selection and choice of language varieties adequate for societal use. It is also

noteworthy that language planning evolved primarily as a study of language issues in developing

nations (Rubin & Jernud, 1971). In fact, the whole language enterprise was originally concerned

with addressing what Western colonial nations thought were language problems in developing

nations. The primary concern of LPP was to find a language that would help new independent

countries move toward sustainable development. While the definitions above reflect early

definitions of language planning in broad terms, the main concern of this chapter is language

education planning or acquisition planning (Cooper, 1989). It is relevant to stress here that while

helping to describe the processes and possible steps in creating language education policies,

traditional models of Language Planning and Policy (LPP) tend to assume that policy can be

explained in terms of intentions, and the rational interests of those involved in policy creation

(Torfing, 1999). In treating language planning as a rational endeavor, these models do not only

downplay the sociopolitical contexts in which language planning takes place, but also risk

perpetuating the hegemony of top-down language planning.

18
 Moreover, there have been heated debates on whether language planning is part of

applied linguistics that deals specifically with the issues of language teaching and learning. In

this view, Cooper (1989) noted the controversy as to whether or not acquisition planning is part

of language planning stems from the desire to set disciplinary boundaries between applied

linguistics and language planning in general. Lo Bianco (2004) noted that LPP involves not only

formal decisions, but also the informal everyday practices that influence language education and

language use. This understanding aligns with Spolsky’s view of language policy. Spolsky (2004)

views language policy as encompassing all formal and informal—family and community—

activities that shape linguistic behavior. Drawing from Cooper (1989), Baldauf (1994) noted that

language policy involves making explicit decisions about which languages to use for education,

administration, and media in a particular society. It is widely accepted in the current LPP

research that policy decisions are not ideologically free. Tollefson (1991), for example,

contended that language policy is, par excellence the mechanism through which those who have

power control access to intellectual and economic resources. Tollefson has suggested that

language policies serve as roadmaps that social agents merely follow.

Although there are many definitions of language planning and language policy, there are

commonly accepted activities that encompass all language planning activities. Corpus planning

deals with activities related to language form, status planning is concerned with the function of

language, and acquisition planning is concerned with language learners and users (Cooper, 1989;

Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997; Van Ells, 2005). While these activities might be performed separately,

there is a very important relationship among them. For example, the selection of language

19
variety, its lexicalization, and standardization, which are part of corpus planning, have immediate

consequences for the prestige of excluded varieties and their functional use (status planning).

Another good example of the interrelationship of corpus, status and acquisition planning

encapsulates the ideology of Standard English as a common global language. Standard English

as a global language does not lend itself easily to linguistic universals only. The promotion of

standards is intertwined with prestige, economic, and political interests (Ricento, 2010).

Moreover, Joshua Fishman has ably demonstrated in The Status Agenda in Corpus Planning

(2000), that although corpus planning is notably expressed in linguistic terms (phonology,

lexicalization, morphology, semantics, etc.), it is an ideological activity often with covert status

planning agendas. In this sense, corpus planning without adequate status planning is like playing

an empty “linguistic game” (Fishman, 2000, p.44). In other words, status planning and corpus

planning are on the continuum. Language planning does not only affect language use, but also

may seek to enact and legitimize discursive practices and identity to further nationalist interests

(Duchêne, 2008).

Given the contested character of language in the context of globalization, the number of

approaches to language policy has grown considerably in the last twenty years. Three

perspectives to language policy that are widely mentioned in policy literature, which are germane

to this analysis, include Critical Language Policy (CLP) (Tollefson, 1991, 2006), Ecological

Language Policy (Haugen, 1972; Hornberger, 2002), and the Linguistic Human Right (LHR)

approach (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008, 2010).

20
Language Policy Perspectives

Critical language policy (CLP). CLP is a response to ahistorical and uncritical analysis

of language within the field of linguistics, sociolinguistics and applied linguistics (Johnson,

2013a). CLP was originally epitomized in the work of Professor James Tollefson. Tollefson

(1991) criticized the neo-classical approach to language planning because of its ahistorical bias,

claims of scientific neutrality, and the emphasis on rational decisions of individuals. Tollefson

(1991, 2006) combined insights from critical theory with an historical-structural perspective. He

argued that language policy serves the interests of the dominant groups. His critique of

neoclassical theory is that:

It does not include the analysis of the forces that lead to the adoption of the planning

approach, the historical and structural factors that determine the evaluative criteria by

which plans are judged to be effective, or political and economic interests that benefit

from the failure of planning. (Tollefson, 1991, p. 28)

In his more recent work, Tollefson takes up a post-structuralist approach on language, which

views power not as residing in the sovereign state; rather power does not only involve struggles,

it is also mediated by the historically and culturally situated process of knowledge production

(Foucault, 1972).

Another important contribution to CLP is Pennycook’s poststructuralist/postmodernist

view of language policy. Pennycook (2006) takes up the Foucauldian articulation of

governmentality. The notion of governmentality was articulated by Foucault (1991) and it

decenters the power of the state by recognizing the agentive power and agency of various actors

(Johnson, 2013b). Pennycook (2006) explores the notion of governmentality to underscore that

21
the production of language policy is not an enterprise confined solely to state sanctioned

discourses. Rather, the production of language policies involves the recruitment of various

discourses that circulate and operate at both at the macro-level and the micro-level discursive

practices (Pennycook, 2006). According to Pennycook, language policy is the mechanism

through which language use becomes part of language governmentality.

Pennycook suggested those language policies that promote ethnolinguistic culture and

languages, are but a new form of using language as mechanism of governing. In other words, he

has suggested that rather than disinveting the language conceptualization akin to the modernist

project (Makoni & Pennycook, 2005), language policies that promote mother tongue education

are still caught in the same modernist and colonial logic and discourse that see language as a

bounded entity (Pennycook, 2006). The analytic of governmentality focuses on the multiplicity

of cultural and discursive practices. In doing so, it abandons the rational views that seek for

actor’s intentionality in language policy discourse and underscore a more localized focus on the

conflicting and contradictory character of language policy discourse and discursive practices.

As a form of critical inquiry of language policy, CLP also examins of the processes of

how institutional language policies affect the economic and cultural situation of ethnolinguistic

groups and language minorities in the context of the global economic and sociocultural

transformations. It is important to note that CLP lines up nicely with critical discourse analysis.

Critical Discourse Analysis and CLP have a common thread in that in both stances there is an

articulation of the hegemonic character of language policy and the struggle for social change as

the alternative avenue for social justice.

22
 In his later works, Tollefson (2002, 2013) theoretically relies on the power of the post-

structuralist argument. In contrast to Planning Language, Planning Inequality, in Language

Policies in Education: Critical Issues’ published in 2013, Tollefson puts forward a post-

structuralist understanding and articulation of power. In this work, he is more cognizant of the

conflicting and complex terrain in which language in education policies are enacted. In

acknowledging that language is not only socially and historically situated, but it is also contested

(Tollefson, 2002), Tollefson not only demonstrates his commitment to post-structuralist

understanding of discourse as constituted and constitutive. He also recognizes language policy as

an ideological endeavor, and that policy actors and agents have the possibility to negotiate,

contest, and resist top-down language policies. This characterization of power has

methodological implications because it points to the complexity of contexts in which policies are

negotiated, imposed at the micro-level (e.g. in schools), resisted, put aside or appropriated.

This articulation of power also opens up a possibility to articulate human agency. In

short, as in most critical language perspectives, within the CLP paradigm, language policy is

inevitably a political endeavor that is contestable and negotiable, albeit within unequal power

relationships. One of the goals of this strand of language policy research is to promote

democratic language policies and therefore the maintenance of minority languages (Johnson,

2013). Although severely criticized for ignoring human agency (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996),

this line of research advocates for language policies that promote minority language through

education (Tollefson, 2002).

Ecological language policies. Another perspective to language policy is the ecological

language policy approach. Einar Haugen is credited for introducing the language ecology

23
metaphor in the study of language and its interactions with the environment. According to

Haugen (1972) language ecology is the study of language and the environment in which

language use takes place. This can be simply explained as language is likened to a living

organism whose chance for survival depends on the conditions of the environment. He goes on to

say that the language environment does not refer to grammar or lexicon, but to the society that

uses it. For Haugen, language ecology has two important dimensions that are intrinsically

related: psychological and sociological. In other words, the psychological and sociological aspect

of language manifest themselves at the level of the speakers through the act of communication.

As Derni (2008) explains:

A social correlation explains how social constraints come to control and manipulate

language use, so that a sharp link is made between the language and its social context. A

psychological one deals with a language as product of interpersonal and intrapersonal

motives and explains language behavior in correlation with human mind and the different

psychological mechanisms (p. 22)

The above observations underscore the importance of language ecology in the process of

language planning and language policy in general, and in education in particular. In fact,

understanding the status, the functions that different languages perform (Sapir, 1931) and how

these interact and influence language attitudes is an important condition for language planning

(Choi, 2003). Hornberger and Hult (2008) noted that although the language ecology perspective

is not yet widely accepted within the field of language planning, language ecology has made

important contributions to the field of LPP. According to Van Lier (2004), it is a conceptual and

heuristic orientation that captures the sociopolitical nature of language education policy and

24
helps to uncover the complex relationship between context and the situations of language

contact and their overarching implications for social actions, language planning in multilingual

contexts.

The ecological perspective to language policy asserts that in any particular environment,

some languages have more value than others; therefore those with less value have a small chance

for survival (Hornberger & Hult, 2008). This observation is of critical importance in relation to

language planning and policy in Angola. In fact, language in education policy plays an important

role in terms of language spread and language maintenance. Hornberger (2003) noted that

language education policies can be very important to supporting language environments. Using

an ecological perspective to language policy Hornberger introduces an important theorizing of

language education policy through continua of biliteracy. A continua of biliteracy asserts the

view that in a classroom environment the interaction between the teacher and the students is

situated along a continuum. In continua of biliteracy Hornberger focuses on interactions among

languages across contexts and the role of language education policies (Hornberger & Hult,

2008). Teachers who challenge coercive power dynamics may be located on one end of the

continuum and those who reinforce coercive power relationships on the other.

Hornberger (2003) illustrated this when she observed that, for example, teachers who

encourage bilingual publications and bilingual materials in their class challenge the monolingual

ideologies that tend to suppress the use of students’ first language (L1) in class on the one hand,

and the teachers who prohibit the use of leaners L1 reinforce the monolingual bias, on the other

(Widdowson, 2001). In fact, her observations about how power relationships evolved in

multilingual contexts, and how policies result in unplanned consequences such as the replication

25
of monolingual practices in schools rather than bilingualism are relevant (Cummins, 2005a,

2005b; 2007, 2008, Heugh, 2009a). The continua of biliteracy constitutes an important

contribution to the study of literacy in multilingual communities because it provides pedagogical

insights that are critical for literacy development in multilingual classrooms. Pedagogically, the

continua of biliteracy provides a framework that can successfully not only empower the learners,

but also promote biliteracy and multiliteracies.

Linguistic human rights approach. Another perspective to language policy takes the

human rights approach (Phillipson, 1992; May, 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2009; Skutnabb-Kangas

& Phillipson, 2008). A language rights approach is grounded in the United Nations Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was signed in 1948, and the United Nations

Education Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Universal Declaration of

Language Rights (UDLR). These international regulations outline the right for any individual to

use their mother tongue in official interactions and to learn both their mother tongue and the

official language of the governing state (Hornberger, 1998). The UDLR on its Article 25 states

that “All language communities are entitled to have at their disposal all the human and material

resources necessary to ensure that their language is present to the extent they desire at all levels

of education within their territory” (Kamwendo, 2006, p. 66).

The human rights approach that draws heavily on the UDLR has been criticized (Brutt-

Griffler, 2002; Makoni, 2011, 2012; Stroud, 2001). Kamwendo noted that, although the idea of

language rights should be encouraged, article 25 of the UDLR seems to be unrealistic because it

is not possible to expect that all languages are used in schools. However, to illustrate the

relevance of LHR paradigm in LPP in Africa, Kawendo (2006) observed that despite the

26
difficulties and complexities that involve the implementation of rights’ based language policy,

the South African language policy remains the best and exemplary model of language planning

in Africa. In other words, Kamwendo has suggested that the language rights approach to

language education policy remains important because it is a useful mechanism for empowering

the communities and the students whose mother tongues have been marginalized in education

(Cummins, 1986, 1995).

Wee (2011), noted that the discourse of language rights has gained prominence due to the

threat that people perceive in the spread of English and other dominant languages such as

French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Although it has limitations, the LHR approach has been

recognized by many scholars in Africa (Firmino, 1995; Henriksen, 2010; Laitin, 1992) and

elsewhere (Hossain & Pratt, 2008; Johnson, 2009a; May, 2012) for its power for promoting

language diversity, multilingualism, and learners’ rights to be educated in their mother tongue or

in the language they know better. In fact, Hossain and Pratt (2008) clearly acknowledge that the

linguistic human rights perspective constitutes an important contribution to LPP in general

because it encourages social equity in language planning, specifically in the implementation of

national language education policies. Moreover, contrary to the views held by some critics (e.g.,

Makoni, 2012) scholars working on the LHR also recognize that fluidity of language repertoires

in multilingual contexts. For example, May (2012), challenged Makoni (2012), by arguing that

he engages in a monolithic analysis of language rights perspectives. In defense of the LHR akin

to his and Hornberger’s work, May noted that language rights viewed through diachronic

analysis of language education policies can better help understand the need for language

27
minorities to use their mother tongue in education. He goes on to say that for the critics of LHR

to be taken seriously, they need to engage with the bulk of language rights literature.

In summary, while the LHR’s approach has been criticized, its usefulness in the context

of the global linguistic and socio-economic transformations cannot be denied. In other words, the

language rights paradigm remains an important tool in LPP research, especially within the

strands akin to critical sociolinguistics and critical linguistics approaches. Given the exclusive

reliance on the Portuguese language based education in Angola, the linguistic rights backed by

constitutional law would significantly contribute to the greater use of students’ mother tongue in

literacy acquisition, the building of a bilingual education system, and the promotion of

multilingualism.

Language policy as text and discourse. Finally, the language policy as a discourse

perspective, which is of greatest relevance to this study, asserts the multi-layered and messy

character of the language policy process (Ball, 1993; Johnson, 2012; Ricento & Hornberger,

1996). Policy as discourse, as originally discussed in Ball (1993) is heavily influenced by

Foucault’s early works, notably Discipline and Punish. We see the notion of policy as text

(documents) and policy as discourse in Ball (1993). Ball sees policy texts as “representations

which are encoded in complex ways (via struggles, compromises, authoritative public

interpretations and reinterpretations) and decoded in complex ways (via actors’ interpretations

and meanings in relation to their histories, experiences, skills, resources and context)” (p.11). In

other words, a policy as text perspective emphasizes that agents interpret and appropriate policy

texts in a dynamic ways, thus embracing a poststructuralist view of language and discourse. For

28
Ball policies pose problems that educators and cultural workers need to deal with in a particular

context.

The enactment of policy texts relies not only the capability and allocation of resources,

but also on the level of commitment, understanding, and cooperation among the various

stakeholders (Ball, 1993). Thus, policies are both changing and contested as they move from

creation, circulation, and recontextualization. A policy text is a result of various hegemonies,

ideologies, and perspectives of its contributors. Therefore the reading of policy texts by various

readers also results in the plurality readings. Yet, as Ball noted, it is important to investigate and

understand the effects of policy texts on readers.

Thus, policy as discourse, emphasizes that discourses impose boundaries in what can and

cannot be said (Ball, 1993). In this sense, discourses are not only about objects, but our very

subjectivity is a product of discourse (Ball, 1993). Ball (1993) noted that we need to be able to

illuminate and uncover the ways in which policies exercise power through the production and

circulation of knowledge. It is noteworthy that policy texts and policy discourse exist in dialogic

relationship, because as an object of policy analysis, policy discourses are constituted by policy

texts. Policy texts and policy discourses are mutually constitutive. According to Johnson (2013b)

policy texts help to produce and in turn are produced by policy discourses. These discourses are

usually in a dialogical relationship with cultural and discursive practices that shape language use

and behaviors. The ideological and hegemonic character of policy discourses is manifest in its

capacity not only to shape, as they are shaped, but also in normalizing dominant views of

language. In short, we are the byproduct of knowledge and subjectivities created through

discursive practices and policy seen as a strategic and political process (Bachi, 2000).

29
Nonetheless, the idea that policy discourses determine what we become recognizes the de-

centering of the state (Ball, 1993).

However, such an approach to discourse has been severely criticized. Bacchi (2000), for

example, noted that policy as discourse approach tends to assume that some groups have more

ability and power to produce discourses. In other words, there has been a tendency to focus on

the power of the top-down policies as homogenizing and leaving little space for resistance.

Cognizant of the criticisms against the policy as discourse perspective to language policy for

having little agency (Ball, 1993, Johnson, 2013a), and to take advantage of the strengths from

the above insights, my approach to policy as discourse takes up the arguments from the original

project (Ball, 1993) but differs from it in significant ways. The policy as discourse perspective

that is articulated in this study draws primarily on Michel Foucault works, specifically the

insights from The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, The Archaeology of Knowledge and the

Discourse on Language, and Governmentality (Foucault, 1977, 1990, 1991).

In The Archeology of Knowledge, Foucault (1972) noted that “discourse has the power to

say something other than what actually says, and thus to embrace a plurality of meanings, a

plethora of signified in relation to a single signifier” (p. 118). In other words, as a form of

discourse, language policies may be rendered to different interpretations by the various agents

and actors involved in the instrumentalization of language policy.

Ball (1993) acknowledged that policy as discourse has the power for redistribution of

voice. In other words, Ball has suggested that, as a form of discourse, even top-down policy

should not be seen as reflecting a homogeneous entity. While alert with the fact that language

policy is a site in which specific language practices may gain legitimacy (Stroud, 2003, 2007b),

30
policy as discourse approach reflects the view that discourses (written and spoken) are the

products of language policy discourse (Johnson, 2013a).

Drawing from Foucault (1972), Ball (1993) noted that discourses systematically form the

objects of which they speak. In this sense policy as discourse examines not only what is said, but

also what is not said. Although this statement has been used to critique policy as discourse, such

criticisms are not only reductionist, but also unfounded. In fact, Foucault (1977) acknowledged

that the practice of interpretation aims not at seeking an unified understanding of the the social

world; rather to interpret is to reveal the dynamic and multiple nature of social experience and

meaning.

The above observations encapsulate the view that policies are not amenable to ‘objective’

interpretations of the already graspable object or a phenomenon that can be fully apprehended.

Rather the meaning potential of language policy resides in its surplus of meaning. As

conceptualized in this study the notion of policy as discourse links to Foucault’s (1991) notion of

governmentality. Contrary to rationalist perspectives, which view language policy as a craft of

the government, governmentality decenters the sovereign and singular power, while highlighting

how power circulates across the various contexts and within the level social and discursive

practices (Johnson, 2013). It is important to note that Foucault (1972) recognizes the possibility

of counter-discourse. Moreover, Foucault (1990) noted that, as an instrument and an effect of

power, discourse, can also act as a stumbling block and a mechanism of resistance.

Foucault (1990) also observed that in a particular discursive formation, discourses that

one deals with are connected to one another. This view is consistent with the theoretical insights

from CDA that recognizes the intertextual nature of discourses involved in language policy

31
production, circulation, and even consumption (Thompson, 1990). Foucault’s notion of

governmentality lines up with the multi-layered conceptualization of language policy in which

various hegemonies and ideologies compete (Johnson, 2012). Johnson (2004) concurs that a

policy as discourse approach that emphasizes discourse as an instrument of power and resistance

constitutes an important way to underscore the reflexive character of social action and the power

of human agency in language planning and policy. Therefore, policy as discourse recognizes the

agentive role of multiple actors and arenas in evolving language policies (McGroarty, 2013).

Thus, I conceptualize Language Policy (LP) as a hegemonic and discursive phenomenon

that is situated socio-historically and politically (Valdiviezo, 2013). In this sense, LP is situated

in an arena where multiple hegemonies (Myers-Scotton, 2006), contradictory beliefs, and

opinions struggle to fix the meaning potential of policies and discursive practices. The view of

policy as having a meaning potential asserts the socio-cultural and intertextual multi-levels

(Halliday & Hasan, 1985,1989) of LP discourse. Rather, than viewing LP as a road map of

activities to be carried out by policy agents or governments, policies encapsulate symbolic

meanings that need to be interpreted within the socio-historical context in which they are

produced, received, appropriated, resisted, and eventually implemented (Thompson, 1990;

Valdiviezo, 2013). Therefore, LP is a dynamic, disjunctive, and a contradictory process that

involves a complex struggle for cultural and symbolic resources among the many actors who

intervene in the policy arena (Fischer & Forester, 2002; Schiffman, 1996; Shore & Wright, 1997;

Shore, Wright, & Pero, 2011; Stein, 2004; Levinson & Sutton, 2001).

However, it is important to bear in mind that such an approach on LPP is intended to

illuminate and maintain the balance between the structure and agency and capture the

32
unpredictable ways in which language policy agents and actors receive and interpret language

policy (Johnson, 2013b). In the spirit of Bakthin (1981) and Foucault (1977), this approach aims

to situate language policy socially and historically in order to illuminate the heterogeneous

nature of the ideologies that undergird the language policy process (Valdiviezo, 2013). Having

discussed the language policy orientations, to contextualize the bilingual education policy

discussed in the foregoing that next section presents an overview of bilingual education research

relevant to the current study.

Bilingual Education Research: Overview

Baker (2007) suggested that bilingual education is an ambiguous term. To reduce such

ambiguity, he proposed the following definition of bilingual education: Bilingual education

refers to the situation where some content matter or all subject content are taught through the

medium of two languages in schools (Baker, 2007). Fishman (1970) insisted that bilingual

education is an important and effective means of promoting and maintaing cultural and linguistic

diversity. To respond to the rapid demographic changes in the United States of America, for

example, such programs were initially conceived to teach learners with Limited English

proficiency (LEP). In essence the learners’ mother tongue is used to help them learn different

school subject matter (Rossell & Baker, 1996; Smith & Rodriguez, 2011). Historically the chief

problem in justifying the use of learners’ mother tongue and the introduction of various bilingual

programs is the poor school achievement among minority students especially the Spanish

speaking communities (Padilla, 1983).

There are various models of bilingual education. In bilingual education the most well

recognized models are immersion, transitional (early and late exit), two way or dual medium and

33
developmental maintenance (Benson, 2009). Transitional models use the mother tongue only for

a certain period of time, and afterwards, instruction transitions to the dominant medium of

instruction; whereas development and maintenance programs use both languages to foster

bi/multilingualism (Benson, 2000, 2005, 2009). Baker (2006) has made a very important

distinction between the programs that aim at developing de facto bi/multilingualism and the ones

which take subtractive views (weak bilingual programs). According to the research, additive or

strong bilingual programs are the ones in which most effective language learning builds on L1

development. In other words, additive bilingual programs are developmental (Benson, 2009). For

a detailed review of models of bilingual education and their effectiveness see (Benson, 2009;

Collier, 1992; Ferguson, 2006; Lynch, 1991; Ramirez & Merino, 1990; Rossell & Baker, 1996;

Trueba, 1985). Table1 summarizes the typology of bilingual education programs according to

their goals and outcomes.

Table 1

Typology of Bilingual Education Program Models: Summary

Bilingual Programs Goals Outcomes

Submersion Assimilation Students assimilate into
dominant language
Transitional Bilingual Assimilation Subtractive bilingualism
Education
Maintenance Bilingual Promote linguistic pluralism Develop bilingualism and
Education Languages are seen as a biliteracy
resource

Enrichment, Two-Way, Promote linguistic pluralism Additive bilingualism and

Developmental Bilingual Instruction in two languages biliteracy.
Education
Note. Adapted from Roberts (1995).

34
 The turning point in the bilingual debate, however, was Cummins’ (1979) two

hypotheses. The ‘developmental interdependence’ hypothesis which proposes that the

development of second language (L2) competence is to some extent related to the competence

that children already developed in their L1 at the time when they start learning the second

language. In other words, Cummins suggested that there is a cross-linguistic influence between

the two languages (L1 and L2) involved in the bilingual education process. Whereas the

threshold hypothesis postulates that “there may be threshold levels of linguistic competence

which a bilingual child must attain both in order to avoid cognitive disadvantages and allow the

potentially beneficial aspects of bilingualism to influence his cognitive and academic

functioning” (Cummins, 1979, p. 222).

Bilingual education has been a subject of heated and controversial debates over the last

decades of the twentieth century. The debates center on the effectiveness of bilingual education

(Begley, 2011; Collier, 1992; De Jong, 2003; Diaz, 1983; Hakuta, 2011; Tong, Irby, Lara-Alecio

& Mathes, 2008; Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992; Rossell & Baker, 1996; Verhoeven, 1994;

Willig, 1985). One side of the argument that questions the effectiveness of bilingual education is

the side of the proponents of time on task hypothesis (Porter, 1990a, 1990b). This theory

proposed that bilingual education programs have disadvantages compared to English only

language instruction because the time spent on learning the target language (English) is

significantly not sufficient for attaining the desired language proficiency (Rossell & Baker,

1996). Some research vouched for the time on task factor as one of the most important predictors

of school achievement (Rosenshine, 1979; Wiley, 1996). Others have severely criticized it for

not incorporating important variables such as the pace of instruction, classroom environment,

35
and curriculum content (Rossell & Baker, 1996). Other important crosscutting themes on the

influence of bilingualism in second language learning are bilingualism and gender (Pavlenko,

2001); bilingualism, emotion and mind that emphasize the affective side of lexicon in bilingual

learner (Pavlenko, 2008); mind and brain (Kroll, 1994); and individual differences in early

bilingual and multilingual acquisition. The argument is that individual differences have great

impact and consequences in language acquisition patterns and ultimate language proficiency

(Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Paradis, 2007).

Coming back to the crucial issue of the effectiveness of bilingual education, the most

radical research that questioned bilingual education and the interdependence hypothesis was

conducted by Baker and de Kanter (1981). They used a traditional method of research review,

that is, a statistical review in which studies were accounted as significant “only if one is 95 % or

more sure that it ought not to have occurred by chance” (Lynch, 1991, p. 218). While Baker and

de Kanter’s review dismissed 272 studies out of 300 on the grounds that they were

methodologically flawed, their own review has also been criticized for dismissing literacy in the

first language, and self-esteem measures, which have been the main justification for bilingual

programs for Hispanics (Lynch, 1991). According to Lynch (1991) one important outcome of

Baker and de Kanter’s undertaking is that they refuted the argument that transitional bilingual

education was by far better compared to other methods. Willig (1985) conducted a meta-analysis

review of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education and reviewed the same 28

studies reviewed by Baker and de Kanter. Meta-analysis is said to be a more reliable method

because it uses a computer analysis that helps to maintain all testable variables constant (Lynch,

36
1991). Willig (1985) found that “the type of program and type of tests administered to evaluate

the programs were very influential in the manipulation of the results.

In general, Willig’s results showed that bilingual programs were to some extent better

than submersion, particularly if the tests were in students’ first language. Students were said to

have improved results in listening, comprehension, reading, mathematics, social studies, and

attitudes towards school and self (Lynch, 1991). It can be argued that the interdependence

hypothesis ushered the major developments in terms of research. Some of areas of second

language learning against which the interdependence hypothesis is tested is the development of

literacy (Blosser, 1983; Koda, 2007) age of acquisition (AoA) factor (Patkowski, 1980)

composition (Friedlander, 1994; Johns, 1994), phonological aspects (Desmet & Duyck, 2007;

Gottardo, Gu, Mueller, Baciu & Pauchulo, 2011), lexical and grammatical domains (Simon-

Cereijido & Gutierrez-Clellen, 2009), and semantic transfer (Jiang, 2004).

In regard to the influence of language as a medium of instruction in school success

Thomas and Collier’s, (1997) study on School Effectiveness for Language Minority Children

provides the most cited evidence. However, although Thomas and Collier’s model is appreciated,

some scholars have questioned whether such a model can be replicated in developing countries

and whether the language effects persist in cases where the mother tongue is less developed than

the dominant one (Walter, 2008). These and other questions are relevant in deciding on which

model is adequate for a particular context. While late exit transitional bilingual education is an

option for the short term bilingual education solution for Angola, in the long run it is suggested

that an additive bilingual education is the most feasible model as will become apparent in the

discussion of the models of bilingual education.

37
 The decision to implement any language policy model, however, rests on the premises

that bilingual education models need to be selected on the basis of the language ecology of each

country, its socio-cultural reality and empirical evidence from research. This is the challenge that

the government and language educators need to face. In other words, the success of any language

policy that aims at maintaining or even cultivating African languages will dramatically depend

on the interplay of factors, particularly the collaboration between the government and

educational institutions prepared for language education, the allocation of resources, the change

of attitudes (Adegbija, 1994, 2000; Baker, 2005, Lambert, 1973; Wolff, 2000) towards African

languages, and training of teachers based on the cutting edge theories of second language

teaching and learning.

To sum up, the success of the implementation of a bilingual language education policy

will dramatically depend on the type of the program, the political maturity of the government,

and its willingness to allocate resources (Francis, 2005a; Mazrui, 1996). In short, the success of

any bilingual policy will also depend on the extent to which the local communities and the

various agents are allowed to collaboratively participate in the literacy planning process

(Chimbutane, 2011; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; Trudell, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010; Riley, 2012).

Language Planning and Literacy

Literacy planning is often treated as a part of acquisition planning (Cooper, 1989) or

language-in-education planning (Johnson, 2013). According to Liddicoat (2007), like language

planning, literacy planning involves corpus planning, status planning, and prestige planning.

Each of these planning activities has its own foci and issues. In order for an effective literacy

planning to take place there is a need to ensure that resources for literacy development are

38
available; and corpus planning is exactly the activity of literacy planning that deals with the

technologies of literacy (e.g., normalization of language, orthographies, grammars, production of

dictionaries, etc.). In addition, status planning involves the selection of languages of literacy (the

languages that will be used for literacy acquisition) and their use as a medium of instruction in

schools (Liddicoat, 2005; Tsui & Tollefson, 2004).

One of the most important aspects for developing literacy planning is, to ensure that

learners’ first language or mother tongue is used for basic literacy skills. This view is consistent

with the transfer hypothesis which postulates that literacy skills acquired in mother tongue or

first language serve as a foundation for acquiring literacy in second language (Cummins, 1979,

2000, 2009). Prestige planning is another very important dimension of literacy planning.

According to Liddicoat (2007) contexts play a very important role in determining the models and

needs for particular literacy acquisition planning. Liddicoat (2007) distinguishes six contexts and

perspectives that are important in pursuing literacy acquisition: (1) Literacy in a national

language as a first language; (2) literacy in a national language as an additional language,

national minorities or immigration groups; (3) literacy in minority language as a first language;

(4) literacy in a minority language as an additional language; (5) literacy in multiple languages as

first languages; and (6) literacy in multiple languages as additional languages.

The above scenarios give us a glimpse of the enormous challenges of literacy planning

for promoting multilingual education policies in multilingual societies. Of course, in different

polities or countries, different approaches are put in place for the purposes of literacy acquisition.

For example, Galdames and Gaete (2010) conducted a literacy education policy study in Chile

and noted that, although functionalist views about the relationship between literacy and

39
development are important, in the contexts of global social and political transformations that

have exacerbated social inequality knowing to read and write should not be the only goals of

literacy. Rather literacy for the 21st century should give individuals the skills and knowledge that

can help them to think, critically reflect, and read the world (Freire & Macedo, 1987). This is the

main goal of critical literacy.

Critical literacy. Luke and Dooley (2011) define critical literacy as “the use of texts to

analyze and transform relations of cultural, social and political power” (p. 856). The aim of

critical literacy is to help develop a critique of unequal relations of power, knowledge and social

structures that marginalize minority students through discourses, language and literacy practices.

The missing link in traditional approaches to literacy is the materiality part of literacy practices,

that is, at what price do people become literate, and with what consequences? In most

approaches, at least the ones sold in the third world under the banner of development, the

consequences of ‘being literate’ in societies that are plagued by many material and social

problems are often omitted at the expense of logic and development (Street, 1984). For example,

Street (1984) clearly demonstrates that, in so called ‘non-literate’ societies literacy is deeply

implicated not only in language learning and numeracy activities but also serves ideological

purposes that have material consequences. Striking example are the campaigns of literacy that

spawned out of UNESCO’s initiatives, and the literacy events in Muslim societies described by

Street (1984). However well intentioned they might have been, the campaigns were in most cases

primarily used by governments (not limited to them) to pursue ideological and political goals. In

this respect, I concur with Street (1984) who poignantly questions the emancipatory and

collaborative nature of these campaigns. Individuals’ reading of the world depends on their

40
capacity to interpret and make meaning from their experiences. Freire ‘s understanding of

knowledge opens up a possibility for educators to unmask the asymmetric power relations in

literacy practices, and recognize how such practices are implicated in the creation of

subjectivities and particular regimes of truth. For example, Freire & Macedo (1987) would argue

that rather than empowering, literacy policies that privilege some languages while excluding

others, serve as a tool for disempowerment and marginalization.

Disempowerment means preventing individuals from fully participating in democratic

decision-making processes that affect their economic, social and intellectual development

(Giroux, 1988). In other words, literacy practices that do not account for learners’ socio-cultural

background fail to recognize that knowledge production occurs within historical and political

contexts; and as Giroux (1988) puts it literacy “ becomes the ideological vehicle through which

to legitimate schooling as a site for character development” (p. 61). For example, language and

literacy that privilege monolingualism not only prevent the linguistically marginalized

populations from participating in democratic discourses, but also reinforce the hegemony of

existing power structures at the level of the society in general and in schools in particular.

Critical literacy, as Lankshear and McLaren (1993) argued “can help us understand the

danger that arises when literacy is seen as a private or individual competency or set of

competencies rather than a complex circulation of economic, political, and ideological practices

that inform daily life” (p.413). Language and literacy policies informed by critical approaches

can help illuminate the tensions and struggles that traverse social representation and

signification, and question the assumptions that underlie cultural, and social formation of

41
reality and knowledge, that is, “questioning what is considered legitimate and preferred meaning

at any given historical moment” (Lankshear & McLaren, 1993, p. 413).

Nevertheless, given the political and ideological nature of literacy planning, the choice of

language for literacy has always been a very contentious issue. Given the strict relation between

education policy and the choice of medium of instruction, Tsui and Tollefson (2004) noted that

the medium of instruction policy is instrumental because it affects individuals’ access to political

and economic opportunities and resources. In fact, in Africa the problem of language of literacy

and instruction is a most complex one. Some scholars (e.g., Bamgbose, 2000; Tsui & Tollefson,

2004, 2008), have argued that the discourses and language used in in language policies more

often than not, celebrate linguistic diversity, mother tongue education, and multilingualism.

However, research indicates that in Africa language policies do not go beyond the rhetoric

(Adekola, 2007; Alexander & Busch, 2007; Bascia, Cumming, Datnow, Leithwood &

Livingstone, 2005; Bloch, 2009; Collins & Blot, 2003; Liddicoat, 2007; Liddicoat & Baldauf,

2008; McCarthy, 2003, 2004, 2005). Having discussed the implications of literacy practices in

LPP, the next section discusses language ideology research and its relationship to LPP.

Language Ideology

The notion of ideology has its origin in France. In 1796, Antoine Claude Destutt de

Tracy, a French intellectual, suggested a systematic analysis of ideas and sensations. In Elements

d’Ideologie [Elements of Ideology] (1803-1813), de Tracy examined the faculties of thinking and

forms of experience as aspects of logic and grammar. De Tracy was called an ideologue

(ideologist) because he sought to study the origins of ideas (Nöth, 2004). However, the term

ideology reappeared and gained momentum in Marx and Engels’ the German Ideology originally

42
written in 1846 and published in 1939 by Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. For Marx different

ideas and perceptions are the results of material, social, economic, and historical conditions.

Marx and Engels viewed ideologies as false ideas that sustain the views of the ruling class and

therefore served to legitimate the power of the ruling class (Marx & Engels, 1939). Althusser

(1971) argued that state power is exercised through the repressive and ideological state

apparatuses. This understanding of ideology has been taken up in social sciences, specifically in

the ideology analysis with classical Marxism leanings (See, Poulantzas, 2000; Shaffner, 1996).

Marx’s interpretations of language ideology have been reportedly criticized for being

deterministic and lacking human agency (Oswell, 2006). They have been re- interpreted, albeit

with a social semiotic understanding of language (Gardiner, 1992; Volosinov, 1973; Kristeva,

1981); as discursive and interpretative symbolic form (Thompson, 1990), as central to the social

construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), and as Ideology and utopia (Mannheim,

1979).

According to Van Dijk (2006) for the large part of the 20the century the notion of

ideology continued to have a negative meaning (Billig, 1988; Eagleton, 1991). In fact, the notion

of ideology has been an important aspect in the analysis of colonialism as a cultural, social,

economic, and political system (Blauner, 1969), and also among the critical theorists in the

analysis of relations of domination and oppression (Apple, 1996; Giroux 1997; Freire, 1970). For

scholars who espouse classical Marxism, the notion of ideology is seen as false consciousness

(Eagleton, 1991), and as dominant discourse for Foucault (Schieffelin,Woolard & Kroskrity,

1998). The Parsonian view sees ideology as a system of common beliefs held by a group of

people or community (Woolard, 1992). The literature reviewed here consists of selected

43
research not only on the cultural conceptions of language ideology (Silverstein, 1998), but also

the strand that emphasizes the aspects of language use, the language ideologies and linguistic

differentiation (Irvine & Gal, 2000) and ideology as discursive phenomena that reflect and

shape language planning and policy discourse. It is relevant to note that the concept of ideology

in linguistic anthropology has been revolutionized by Irvine and Gal (2000). Irvine and Gal have

developed a model for how language ideologies become enacted in language use (Hall&

Bucholtz, 2004, p. 380).

Hall and Bucholtz (2004) observed that concepts such as attitudes have been used to

denote socio-cultural beliefs about language. Such characterization, however, has been done at

the expense of social analysis that unmasks the social structures that sustain and reinforce the

structuring of logics of power (Hall & Bucholtz, 2004). Couplan (2010b) concurs that, more

often than not, sociolinguistic variationist analysis of language policy neglects how socio-

historical and socio-cultural contexts reflect and shape the forms, use, and functions of language.

It is significant to note that the issue of power as a social phenomenon situated in the socio-

historical and socio-cultural contexts is central to the analysis of ideology as discursive

articulation (Hall & Bucholtz, 2004; Thompson, 1990), among social scientists and linguistic

anthropologist interested in the social and political meaning of language (Blommaert, 1999;

Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998). Ideology as a concept has different meanings to

different people. In regard to the variations in the conception of language ideology, Hall and

Bucholtz (2004) mentioned that:

The conventional understanding of ideology as a process of mystification that distorts

subjects’ perception of political-economic realities has been replaced in most linguistic-

44
 anthropological research by a more nuanced view in which ideology organizes and

enables all cultural beliefs and practices as well as the power relations that result from

these (p. 379).

Thus, the understanding and conceptualization of ideology in this study demarcate

significantly from the negative views of ideology as false consciousness and misinterpretations.

Rather, my approach on language ideology relates to the hegemonic meaning potential of policy

discourses. The concept of hegemony extends and enriches the notion of ideology in that, it

allows envisioning plurality of forces and struggles in the policy-making arena. In educational

research and linguistic anthropology ideology has been theorized in terms of the ideology of

monolingualism (Creese & Blackledge, 2011; Wiley & Lukes, 1996), ideology of standard and

prescriptivism (Milroy & Milroy, 1999), nationalist ideologies (Wright, 2004), the ideology of

accent (Lippi-Green, 1997), language ideology debates (Blommaert, 1999; Shohamy, 2006),

ideology of linguistic differentiation (Irvine & Gal, 2000), language and discourse (Thompson,

1984), and ideologies and myths (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2004).

Wiley and Lukes (1996) argued that the ideology of monolingualism is rooted in the

views that see multilingualism and language diversity as a result of immigration. In doing so, this

view sustains the ideology of standards and English only education system in the U.S. The

choice of the language variety to be used as standards raises the issue of how standards are used

to marginalize those who do not attain proficiency in the prescribed norms. Similarly,

Blommaert (1999) noted that ideologies are not autonomous, but are socio-culturally motivated

ideas and perceptions reflected in language use. Language ideologies are discursive elaborations

realized in the meta-pragmatic discursive frames. Errington (2008) observed that the issues of

45
identity are often oversimplified and articulated in terms differentiation of accent and dialect. In

doing so, these researchers disguise and downplay the ways that linguistic differentiation labels

and creates social categories. Such discursive categories help to structure and shape people’s

subjectivities, identities, and experiences (Leonardo, 2003). Lippi-Green (1997) studied the

ideology of English with an accent in the U.S and observed that language accent differentiation‒

distinctive phonological production of sounds has been used as a basis for ideological

discrimination and marginalization.

Irvine and Gal’s (2000) theorization of ideology is innovative because it recognizes the

constitutive and dialectical character of ideology. The most relevant aspects in Irvine and Gal’s

(2000) conception of language ideology are the notions of erasure, iconization a concept that

draws from Piercean iconic sign and fractal recursivity in which oppositional ideology of

differentiation is replicated by social structures (Hall& Bucholtz, 2004). Iconization refers to the

process in which linguistic features are iconized as attributes of the identity of the speakers.

Fractal recursivity reflects the way in which iconic differences attributed to the pseakers are used

to create an other. According to Irvine and Gal (2000) fractal recursivity can create multiple

identity positions at once. In fact, these semiotic processes are very relevant in the course of

disentangling colonial ideological and identity constructs that were, and still are pervasive in

language education policy discourse. Language ideologies have systematically been used to

assign identities based on the linguistic structure and use. McGroarty (2008) argued that,

language ideology has both a societal and a personal valence. She observed that language

ideologies are also politically and socially motivated. For example, the influence of linguistic

ideology can be seen in language policy and planning in status planning. The selection of certain

46
languages and varieties cannot solely be justified on the pragmatic necessity of language use.

Although individuals’ communicative resources cannot be policed, language policies play a

crucial role in the distribution, circulation, and perhaps legitimation of linguistic practices.

Moreover, language ideologies are indexical because they create boundaries and assign

the individuals’ social positions based on the differentiation of linguistic resources such as accent

and non-standard language (Irvine & Gal, 2000). Therefore, language ideologies, as Wiley and

Lukes (1996) noted, are crucial for assessing discursive practices‒ that is how discourses are

embedded in power relationships that influence teachers’ views and language policy discourses.

In this sense, as an aspect of discursive formation, ideology analysis can not be dissociated with

the social-historical context of its production, circulation and reception (Blommaert, 1999,

Thompson, 1990). Such an analysis presupposes understanding the discursive mechanisms by

means of which language policy discourses are produced and instantiated and the value attached

to them as symbolic resources (Blommaert, 1999, 2005, 2007). The analysis of language

ideology has been part of a larger strategy in educational research, specifically language planning

and policy and educational linguistics (Wortham, 2001). Ideologies mediate the discursive

construction of social identities and have been found to have great influence on language policy

and planning outcomes.

Therefore, ideology analysis and critique remains a useful and important tool for

assessing the discursive construction of language policies, and how these shape individuals’ view

and perceptions of language use and the construction of knowledge. The study of ideology as

discourse and symbolic form concerns and presupposes a discursive analysis of the forms and

relations of its specific socio-historical context in terms of governmentaliy. Thus, ideology

47
analysis is not necessarily or solely articulated from the vantage point of the institutional power;

rather the analysis aims to identify the participants and agents involved in the language policy

debates and illuminate the how’s and why’s of particular policy discourses, opinions, perceptions

and attitudes (Blommaert, 1999).

Language Attitudes

Languages are not objective and neutral instruments of communication or neutral media

for conveying meanings. Rather language is a window through which individuals access reality.

In other words, language use is connected to identities of social or ethnic groups. Thus,

evaluations and attitudes towards languages and dialects have consequences for languages as

well as for the speakers of the languages (Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, 2003; Ihemere, 2006).

In short, language attitudes and speakers evaluations have been using interchangeably in attitude

research. However, Schoel et al. (2013) have noted that speaker evaluations are complex and

may reflect different attitudes. Thus, attitudes towards languages are seen as the most basic level

in the language evaluation; whereas attitudes towards speakers often involve stereotyping and

prejudice (Giles & Coupand, 1991). Traditionally, attitude research has been carried out in

relation to second language (e.g., Gaies & Beebe, 1991; Gardner, 1959, 1985; Gardner &

Lambert, 19721; Garret, 2010; Loureiro-Rodriguez, Boggess & Goldsmith, 2013), attitudes

towards speech communities (e.g., Diallo, 2009), attitudes and minority groups (Edwards, 1994,

1996, 2010), and attitudes to foreign languages (Bartram, 2010). Given the importance of

attitudes in second language learning and language education policy, in the following sections I

review the attitude research pertinent to LPP.

48
 Language attitudes in language education policy. The relevance of language attitudes

for educational research and language planning and language policy in particular, has been

confirmed both in sociolinguistic and language planning research (e.g., Ager, 2001; Cooper &

Fishman, 1974; Garret, Coupland, & Williams, 2003). A number of studies have shown that

language attitudes are crucial for language education policy given their importance in influencing

how social agents and actors’ language choices may shape and steer language policy initiatives

in a particular direction and influence the outcomes (Bokamba, 1995). Research on language

education policy suggests that inquiring of people’s experiences, opinions about and choices of

language can successfully help design a language policy that satisfies the needs of the people.

In other words, by listening to the people for whom the policy is designed increases the

likelihood of success and acceptance of a particular policy (Henriksen, 2010). For example,

language ideologies of accent, correctness, and purity have been mentioned in attitude research

as part of an evaluative mechanism that speakers may use to approve or disapprove certain

language behaviors (Milroy & Milroy, 1985; Schiffman, 1992, 1996). Gogolin (1994) conducted

a study form various countries and questioned teachers in respect to attitudes towards the

language of instruction and found that teachers’ perceptions and attitudes are influential for the

success of language instruction. In Language attitudes in Sub-Saharan Africa: A sociolinguistic

overview, Adegbija (1994) brings what is perhaps one of the most authoritative accounts of the

language situation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Adegbija’s study outlines the socio-historical,

political, and economic factors that hinder African nations to successfully promote multilingual

language education, linguistic diversity and democratic language policies. He reported that

49
negative attitudes towards African languages constitute the major problem for promoting these

languages.

Heugh (2007) reported on language attitudes and choices in the context of Pan South

African Language Board (PANSALB). She argued that although attitudes towards African

languages are not necessarily negative, there has been a tendency toward language exclusion.

She argued that, nevertheless there is a strong preference among speakers of African languages

for the continuous use of both African languages and English in higher education settings. In a

similar vein, Canvin (2007) conducted a study in Mali (West Africa) and observed that although

the discussion of language education problems is politically framed through laws and policies, it

is a truism that attitudes toward languages and speakers play a critical role in the language

choices that people make. She concluded that the issue of language choice, including the choice

of the language of instruction, is a pragmatic one. Language choice considerations are often

driven by social and economic factors, she charged. In a study entitled Language Policies and

Attitudes Towards Frisian in the Netherland, Hilton and Gooskens (2013) found that Dutch

speakers were largely negative about Frisian, while Frisian speakers tended to be more positive

for both Dutch and Frisian. The findings of this study reported that people who have been

affected by top down language policies and planning for Frisian through mandatory learning and

official status had positive attitudes. This insight reveals the contradictory nature of language

policy and language attitudes.

Pütz (1995) conducted a language attitude study in Namibia and demonstrates that

voluntarism for linguistic assimilation is propelled by external social, economic, and political

forces such as the fear to be labelled or categorized as backward and the fear of being accused of

50
tribalism. In fact, tribalism and the danger of internal conflict is the most used arguments by the

detractors of multilingualism in Africa. In their study in England, Hilmarsson-Dunn and Mitchell

(2011) found that in multilingual contexts attitudes are not the sole factor that affects language

use. They observed that lack of speakers in social and school contexts, weakens social networks

and consequently drives that choice of language use. As far as the influence that teachers have in

influencing language choice in educational settings, Lasagabaster and Huguet (2007), have

concurred with McGroarty (1996), that teacher’ attitudes are influential in shaping students’

perceptions about bilingualism and multilingualism. In short, volumes of research that have been

published in the last twenty years recognize that language is not an objective and neutral

instrument of communication (Edwards, 2013).

People use languages in a variety of situations and researching people’s opinions, beliefs,

and values about language can illuminate the attitudes that people hold about particular

languages and varieties and shed light on the conditions that led to such attitudes. Although

language background has been mentioned in several studies as being an important contributor to

language attitudes (Baker, 1992), attitudes may be influenced by factors such as socio-historical

conditions, economic, and political factors. It is, however, noteworthy that given this

researcher’s theoretical, methodological, and epistemological assumptions, this study demarcates

from the traditional views of language attitudes. The approach to language attitudes in this study

identifies itself by a discourse analytic, which views attitudes as socially constitutive and

constituted through discourse or language use (Baker, 1992; Cooper & Fishman, 1977;

Henriksen, 2010; Van Dijk, 1982). Attitudes do not grow from a vacuum. Rather, they are

51
learned, constituted, changed, and expressed through discursive practices. Attitudes stem from

various discourses that shape people’s ways of behaving, acting (Gee, 2011).

Such an approach to language attitudes marks an epistemological shift and demarcates it

from an objectivist understanding of attitudes. This understanding encapsulates the view that

discourses can serve not only as “an instrument and effect of power, but also a hindrance, a

stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing strategy” (Foucault,

1990, pp. 100-101). In other words, the discursive approach to attitudes in this study recognizes

the possibility for counter discourse, which is an aspect of resistance and agency. In this sense,

discourse perspectives to language attitudes take a variationist approach, which recognizes that

attitudes may vary. Important to this study, however, are those factors that may motivate

favorable and unfavorable attitudes towards the languages spoken in Angola.

According to Baker (1992) among the factors that influence attitudes, the most influential

factors are the age of the speakers, language background, parents, and peer group effects.

However, parents’ language attitudes are said to have a greater influence on the development of

children’s language attitudes. It is, nonetheless, important to stress that the relationship between

parent’s attitudes and their children’s is not necessarily a causal one. Rather, because children

early language acquisition and socialization occurs in a family environment, parental attitudes

significantly shape children’s language behavior and linguistic repertoire (Baker, 2001;

Cunningham-Anderson & Anderson, 1999; Taylor, Bernhard, Garg & Cummins, 2008).

Attitudes are very important for this study because decisions about language education

policy are significantly influenced by attitudes of various groups, and legal constraints including

regulations, laws, and clauses in national constitutions (Christ, 1997). Moreover, the question of

52
the medium of instruction in most African nations is influenced by colonial ideologies, attitudes,

and the discourses that persistently privilege a standard variety of languages (Adegbija, 1994;

Pütz, 2005). Of course, attitudes are not the only factors that affect the implementation of

multilingual language policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. The problems that hamper the effective

implementation of multilingual education policies range from lack of government enforcement,

lack of resources, and more importantly lack of sound attitudinal research. As a result, most

African countries, whether overtly and covertly, continue to privilege the use of European

languages at the expense of the marginalization of African languages, which are mainly confined

to family and private social interactions.

Given that people can hold the same attitude toward an object, but have very

contradictory and conflicting behavior, a discourse and variationist perspective to attitude can

successfully illuminate the tensions and interests that motivate the choices that speakers make.

Language attitudes are part of individual and societal linguistic culture. Given that language

policy is often driven by a particular linguistic culture (Schiffman, 1996), language attitudes

cannot be ignored in language education policy research. Opinions and attitudes have been dealt

with discursively (Van Dijk, 1982). From a discourse analysis perspective, attitude and opinions

can be subjectively evaluated from a text (policies, speakers’ conversation, etc.) as the referents

of evaluation of discourse (Van Dijk, 1996).

With respect to language education policies studies, however, research that address

opinions, beliefs and attitudes discursively are scant. Moreover, often than not, studies that

research language education policies often ignore how languages are connected with people’s

social and ethnic identities (Appel & Myusken, 1987). Thus, by exploring participants’

53
experiences, discourse analysis is a better suited to capture the attitudes, values, and beliefs that

people hold toward the languages spoken in Angola and how these connect to social and ethno-

linguistic identities (Baker, 1992). Attitudes are complex systems that are intrinsically connected

to language ideologies. In other words, attitudes have political and ideological implications for

language education policy of which researchers should be cognizant. This chapter presented the

literature review pertinent to language policy and language education policy in particular. From

the review, it is abundantly clear that the development of a bilingual education policy is

contingent to an interplay of factors, particularly the attitudes, ideologies and beliefs that people

hold about languages. Thus, in the context of the foregoing the next chapter provides the context

for language policy development in sub-Saharan Africa and Angola. It looks at the how various

linguistic ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes intersect and influence language policy discourse in

Angola.

54
 CHAPTER THREE

THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

This chapter provides the context of the study by situating the research problem within

the general LPP context in sub-Saharan Africa and Angola specifically. The goal of this

discussion is highght how colonial language policies have influenced language education

decisions and policy discourse in most post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa and Angola in

particular. I argue that LPP in Angola is influenced and shaped by both colonial and postcolonial

ideologies and discursive practices. To contextualize and provide a broader picture of the

influence of colonial language policies in Africa, I discuss colonial and postcolonial language

policies in sub-Saharan Africa and Angola and their implication for the ongoing language

education reform. To highlight the prevalence of subtractive language education programs, I

present the bilingual education debate and the typology of bilingual education research in sub-

Saharan Africa. I question and problematize the orthographic accord that is promoting the

unification of the Portuguese language spelling system in Brazil, Portugal and the Portuguese

speaking African countries (Angola, Mozambique, São Tomé e Principé) and discuss the

implication this accord might have on democratic education reform and multilingualism in

Angola. I argue that the Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord undermines linguistic diversity and

prevents Angolans from developing linguistic repertoires that reflect the socio-cultural and

sociolinguistic reality of the country.

Language Planning and Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa

The history of LPP in Africa would be incomplete without a brief discussion of the

periods of developments in the history of Africa. It is almost a truism that the history of Africa

55
can be generally divided into three main stages. Likewise the history of language development,

particularly the sub-Saharan part of Africa can also by the same logic be divided into three main

periods, namely the pre-colonial, the colonial and the post-colonial respectively (Abdullaziz,

2003, Augusto, 2012). Given the scope of this dissertation, I am going to provide only a brief

account of the language situation in pre-colonial Africa. Based on historical evidence it is

commonly accepted that even in the pre-colonial Africa language use was influenced by relations

of power between the rulers and the ruled. Thus, contrary to what some people might suggest,

the politics of language was not as different as the western models in which language

rationalization has been part of the politics of social development projects (Laitin, 1992). In

respect to LPP there is an agreement among African language scholars that before the advent of

colonialism the history of languages can be traced from North, West, and East Africa, where

basic literacy and higher education among the Muslim communities was mushrooming

(Abdullaziz, 2003).

African nations, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, were multilingual before the inception

of colonialism. Multilingualism has always been a key factor in the political, social and cultural

organization of the African society (Abdullaziz, 2003; Bunyi, 1999; Heugh, 2011a; Wolff, 2003,

2011). Since the pre-colonial period the languages spoken by most sub-Saharan people were

Bantu languages and some languages of non-Bantu origins (e.g., Khoesan). Following the

classification made by Greenberg (1963), African languages can be divided into 5 language

phyla, namely the Niger-Kongo phylum, also known as Kongo-Kordofinian (The major language

family in Sub-Saharan Africa comprises of Bantu/Bandoid languages), Nilo-Saharan, Afro-

Asiatic, Khoisan, Malayo Polinesian, also referred to as Astronesian represented by Malagasy

56
the language spoken in the island of Madagascar (Batibo, 2005; Lodhi, 1993; Purvis & Iverson,

2011).

Although the history and classification of African languages are beyond the scope of this

review, it is worth noting that the denomination of indigenous languages spoken by the majority

of people of sub-Saharan part of Africa, that is, ‘Bantu languages’ derives from the word

‘muntu’ or ‘ntu’ which means person. It should be noted, however, that the denomination or

classification of African indigenous languages, particularly the (Bantu languages) is reminiscent

of the colonial linguistic project. There are also in Africa a substantial number of Indo-European

languages, chiefly English, French, Portuguese, which are a legacy of colonialism in Africa

(Purvis & Iverson, 2011) and other varieties resulting from the language contact between the

European and African languages (Mufwene, 2008, Thomason, 2001). To put it differently,

existing social location of African languages reflects the linguistic ideologies of the colonial

period to which I shall turn now.

Colonial language policies. LPP in Africa can be traced to language developments in the

Muslim communities; however, as a development project, LPP in Africa is a consequence of the

Berlin Conference in 1885 during which Europeans powers with partitioned Africa among

themselves (Augusto, 2012; Bunyi, 1999; Rasool, 2007). Thus, current geographical and

sociolinguistic mapping is the result of the partition of Africa by Western powers. It is also

important to note here that the division of Africa by the western power was carried out without

consideration of any ethno-linguistics (Abdullaziz, 2003). This fact most likely accounts for the

great linguistic variability in small territories (Abdulaziz, 2003). In their civilizing mission (Ki-

57
Zerbo, 1990, 2005), the different Europeans powers, namely the British, the French and the

Portuguese, pursued different kinds of language policy and planning.

Among the colonizers of Africa, the British language policy was more paternalistic in the

sense that they encouraged the use of African indigenous languages at the lower level of

education and administrative services (Abdulaziz, 2003, Spencer, 1974). The missionaries played

an important role in the European civilizing mission. They were the ones who devised learning

and teaching materials in vernacular languages (Whiteley, 1974). It should not be a surprise that

in most cases, the teaching of indigenous languages was piously encouraged both for the purpose

of inculcating Christian faith and political control of the indigenous populations. Unlike their

British and German counterparts, the French based on their language politics at home, promoted

French as the language of instruction and civility in Africa. As a part of the assimilationist

language policy the French never entertained the idea of promoting the development of African

languages, let alone the creation of orthographical systems (Abdulaziz, 2003, Spencer, 1974). In

other words, France’s language policy in Africa was unequivocally the one that totally supported

the idea that French should be the sole language used for the social, administrative and political

life of the colonies. For example, to secure the primacy of French, in 1911 the Governor of West

Africa established that all administrative paperwork, including administrative documents be

printed solely in French.

The Germans were probably the most conservative in the sense that their language policy

was directed toward the avoidance of Africans learning German. To this end, in East Africa, for

example, the Germans promoted Swahili as the lingua Franca. The use of German was limited to

settler communities, while the administration in Tanganyika was exclusively run through

58
Swahili. Public servants and military personnel were obliged to pass a proficiency test in Swahili

before taking their duties. At play was the German Romantic idealism based on Hegelian

thoughts that all peoples have a language for fulfilling their destiny (Laitin, 1992). In their efforts

to protect the sacro-sanctity of the German language, the missionaries were in charge of writing

grammars in Swahili and collected manuscripts from pre-twentieth century literature (Abdulaziz,

2003). Interestingly enough, in Burindi and Rwanda the Germans and Belgians encouraged the

development of multilingualism in African languages through the promotion of bilingual

education via African dominant language or language of wider communication (Alexander,

2009a; Desai, 2010, 2013; Kamwangamalu, 2004, 2011, 2013; Martin, 2006; Stroud, 2002;

Stroud & Heugh, 2011).

The Belgians had their own struggles and wars with the use of French or Flemish

languages. In the Congo, however, the Belgians had very specific goals as far as the use of

languages is concerned. Drawing on Fabian (1986), Laitin (1992) observed that the Belgian state

drew from the Colonial Charter of 1908, whose goal was to “avoid multilingualism, if possible,

because it is a threat to the order; and if this is not possible rank all languages in hierarchically

with French at the top” (p. 86). In terms of language education policies, different colonizers had

different approaches; it should be noted, however, that for all of them, the main pattern was the

use of African languages in the initial grades with the transition to European language (e.g.,

English). For a detailed account of British and German language policies in Africa (See

Abdulaziz, 2003; Batibo, 2005; Laitin, 1992; Spencer, 1974).

In respect to the use of African languages, it is often argued that the Portuguese had the

most intolerant language policy (Abdulaziz, 2003). In fact, in their governance and

59
administration of what they called the Portuguese overseas territories (Angola, Mozambique,

Guinea Bissau, Sao Tome and Cape Verde) the Portuguese took very stern measures to ensure

that the use of African languages in education and even administrative services was not tolerated.

Missionaries who dared using African languages in education were severely punished. In fact,

the Portuguese government also prohibited the use of other colonizers languages particularly

English. In 1903, the Portuguese colonial government explicitly prohibited the use of English in

Angolan Schools. The Portuguese language was the only language accepted for the purpose of

education. In pursuing their assimilation policy, the Portuguese government totally discouraged

the use of indigenous languages. The use of these European languages as the sole language of

instruction has prevailed in most post-colonial Africa.

Post-colonial language policies.The literal meaning of the notion of ‘post-colonialism’

suggests the period after colonialism. In fact, it is in this sense that this term is used in the

foregoing review. As I suggested at the outset, the history of LPP in Africa is divided into two

distinct periods. Thus, in this section, I ruminate on the language question in post-colonial

Africa. In the 1960’s Africa witnessed the wave of nationalistic movements toward

decolonization and political independences. A great number of nations in Sub-Saharan Africa

achieved their political independences during this period, namely Nigeria, Congo Republic of,

Niger, Togo, Senegal to name a few. Decolonization of Africa took place in the spirit of

optimism and hope for better a future. However, most nations were confronted with the problem

of nation-building, economic and political self- determination, and of course social development

(Rassool, 2007, 2013). Despite the profuse enthusiasm and optimism to develop Afro-centric

60
states, most African nations were confronted with the question of which language to use for

nation-building and social development.

To confront the social and political dilemmas inherited from colonialism, the heads of

African states gathered in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963 to create the Organization of African

Unity (OAU), today African Union. The Union was established with the objective to strengthen

unity and solidarity in African independent states, and the liberation of African states under the

colonial rule. Guided by The Universal Declaration of Principles of International Cultural Co-

operation adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its Fourteenth Session in 1966,

and within the framework of a cultural charter for Africa ratified by the heads of African states

on 5th July 1976 in Port Louis, Mauritius, African nations were encouraged to develop language

policies, to teach and develop African languages. Part V of the Charter entitled “the use of

African Languages” in its article 17, 18 and 19 reads as follows:

Article 17. The African States recognize the imperative need to develop African

languages which will ensure their cultural advancement and accelerate their economic

and social development and to this end will endeavor to formulate a national policy in

regard to languages.

Article 18. The African States should prepare and implement the reforms necessary for

the introduction of African languages in education. To this end each state may choose

one or more languages.

Article 19. The introduction of African languages at all levels of education should have to

go hand-in-hand with the literacy work among the population. (African cultural charter,

1976, pp. 8-9)

61
 In fact, this period coincided with the emergence of concerns with the problems of

language planning in developing nations (e.g., Haugen, 1972). However, African nations did not

take advantage of the research insights provided by many of the studies to devise policies

reflecting the socio-cultural and political reality of Africa. After Mauritius, African leaders and

scholars continued to seek changes in the status of African languages and consequently improve

education in Africa. In June 1986 the OAU adopted the so called Language Plan of Action for

Africa, also known as the manifesto on the language question (Alexander, 2009b). Again, one of

the key elements of the manifesto was to free the African population from their dependence on

the ex-colonial languages and progressively replace the European languages with African

indigenous languages (Alexander, 2009).

In Jomtien, Thailand, from 5 to 9 March, 1990, at the World Conference on Education for

All, participants recognized that traditional knowledges and indigenous cultural heritage have a

value and validity in their own right and a capacity to both define and promote development;

after Jomtien, in 1997 at the Intercontinental Conference on Language Policy in Africa (ICLPA),

held in Harare, Zimbabwe, 51 out of the 54 African states gathered once again to address the

language question, and in particular the promotion of language research and the implementation

of viable national language policies and the introduction of African languages as a medium of

instruction in schools (Batibo, 2013).

At the Intercontinental Conference in Harare the leadership of the African Academy of

Languages (ACALAN) recommended to the Ministers of Culture and Education that ex-colonial

languages and African languages can cohabit peacefully if managed judiciously (Alexander,

2008). This is a critical insight because as Alexander (2009) noted rather than continuing to feed

62
the long lasting dilemma about choosing between the mother tongue (s) and English, French and

Portuguese, the most viable approach would be the adoption of a mother tongue-based bilingual

education based on cutting edge research on additive bilingual education. Alexander’s comments

underscore the need to approach the language question from the old discourse point of view

which views the languages that Africa inherited from colonialism as antagonistic. Rather these

languages have become part of African language ecology; as such these languages (English,

French and Portuguese) enrich the language and cultural diversity of Africa.

In recognizing the role of ex-colonial languages in the development of African societies,

we must also acknowledge the dynamic nature of language phenomenon. It is crucial, however,

to also acknowledge that while recognizing the possibility of hybrid linguistic identities many

indigenous people continue to view their ancestral languages as the markers of cultural or ethnic

identity (May, 2005). In other words, recognizing the fluidity of identity and culture does not

necessarily imply that mother tongue education is irrelevant or even unimportant (Canagarajah,

2005). This is very important given that language policy as a socio-cultural phenomenon does

not serve the process of rationalization per se, but serves as a mechanism of control that

legitimizes processes and determines what is viewed as valid knowledge and valuable in

language behavior (Marshall, 2007).

Despite all of all of the initiatives about the promotion of African languages, a bleak

scenario remains as far as the role of African languages in the development of African society is

concerned. In fact, it is the consensus among African scholars that the choice of language of

instruction in Africa is a more a political issue than a technical one. It should, however, be noted

that the sociolinguistic landscape of Africa, the Sub-Saharan part in particular, is characterized

63
by a complex multilingualism which made the choice of language more daunting. This fact is

often mentioned to justify why most African nations ended up adopting the use of the ex-colonial

languages (English, French and Portuguese) as the official languages of their respective countries

and in most cases the only languages used as medium of instruction (Alexander, 2009;

Bamgbose, 1991; Mazrui, 2000, 2002, 2004; Rasool, 2007).

It is also often argued that mother tongue education is expensive. However, there is

evidence from cutting edge language research that in the long run maintaining the ex-colonial

languages as the sole languages of instruction is little more expensive than investing in the local

languages (Grin, 2005). Moreover, Brock-Utne (2001) maintained that when the costs are

calculated, it is also important to factor the cost of maintaining a language education policy. The

consequences of the use of European languages as the only medium of instruction in Africa are

manifold. This situation has served to legitimize and reproduce the unequal distribution of power

and resources between those who have full command of European languages (English, French,

and Portuguese) most of whom are trained ex-colonial elites and the speakers of African

languages (Mazrui, 2000).

At independence, most African countries have pursued either endoglossic language

policies, that is, nations that use African national languages as official and the primary language

of communication or exoglossic language policies, whereby countries have adopted foreign

languages as the language used in most institutional activities, and as such the language is not

spoken by the majority (Lodhi, 1993). As mentioned earlier, the inherited language situation in

sub-Saharan Africa differs depending on the types of language policies pursued by each of the

64
colonial governments. Abdulaziz (2003) provides a summary of language situation and typology

of language policies in Africa adapted in tables 2, 3,4 and 5 respectively.

Table 2

Countries with one African Language Spoken by the vast Majority of the Population

Country Typology Languages

Botswana Spoken as Mother Tongue Setswana
Burundi Spoken as Mother Tongue Kirundi
Lesotho Spoken as Mother Tongue Sesotho
Rwanda Spoken as Mother Tongue Kinyarwanda
Somalia Spoken as Mother Tongue Somali
Swaziland Spoken as Mother Tongue SiSwati
Central African Republic As a Language of Wider Sango
Communication (LWC)
Ethiopia As a Language of Wider Amharic 20%, Oromo 50%
Communication (LWC) native speakers
Kenya and Tanzania As a Language of Wider KiSwahili
Communication (LWC)
Mali As a Language of Wider Bambara
Communication (LWC)
Senegal As a Language of Wider Wolof 35 % native speakers
Communication (LWC)
Sudan As a Language of Wider Arabic
Communication (LWC)
Note: Adapted from Abdulaziz (2003).

Table 3

Countries with one Predominant African Language

Country Language
Dohomi Ge
Togo Ewe
Burkina Faso Mosi and More
Ghana Akan and Kwi
Niger Hausa
Zimbabwe Shona
Malawi Chichewa and Cinyanja
Note: Adapted from Abdulaziz (2003).

65
Table 4

Countries with Several Indigenous African languages Competing with one Another

Country Languages
Nigeria Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba and Kanuri
Sierra Leone Mende and Temme
Democratic Republic of Congo Chiluba, Kikongo, Kingwana, KiSwahili and
Lingala
Note: Adapted from Abdulaziz (2003).

Table 5

Typology of Language Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa

Countries with Language Countries with Language

Exoglossic Policies: Endoglossic Policies:
promoting Ex- Promoting African
Colonial Language Languages
Angola Portuguese Central African Sango
Republic
Guinea Bissau Portuguese Comoros Shingazija/Comorian
Mozambique Portuguese Ethiopia Amharic
Liberia English Somalia Somali
French speaking French Tanzania KiSwahili
countries except
DRC

It is also generally accepted among African scholars that “there is a correlation between

use of African languages as medium of instruction and colonial language policies that permit or

encourage the teaching of African languages” (Bamgbose, 2004). The problems that result from

such differing language policies in Africa are enormous, especially in countries where the

distinction between national language and the official language is a dichotomous one. The

national language is the LWC and national unity. In most cases national languages are

indigenous African languages, with the exception in the case of Portuguese speaking nations

66
(Angola), Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and South Africa (Abdulaziz, 2003). For

example, in the United Republic of Tanzania, Swahili is the language that is fully accepted as not

only LWC, but also the official national language of the country.

The case of Tanzania is instructive because at independence, Tanzania embraced the

language politics in which Kiswahili was used throughout the primary level education as the

medium of instruction. It is common to see clauses or articles that address the language question

in the constitutions of African countries, but surprisingly, the current constitution of Tanzania

does not mention the language question (Brock-Utne & Holmarsdottir, 2004). Abdulaziz (2003)

bemoans that the standards of education in Tanzania have gone down because the country has

failed to promote and extend the use of Kiswahili as medium of instruction at the secondary and

higher education level. Following Abdulaziz (2003) in sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia is the only

country that has established an African indigenous language, both as a national language and the

medium of instruction up to the level of secondary education.

Apart from the internal ideological motivations in multilingual Africa the choice of

language is a political issue chiefly because choosing one ethnic language over another might

generate interethnic strife. The complexity of the language problem in Africa has resulted in

many issues among which education is probably the most daunting one. The reality is that post-

colonial African nations have failed to implement any effective language policies, particularly

the ones directed toward the use of African indigenous languages as medium of instruction. This

is because as Abdulaziz (2003) stated that in Africa, language policies lack careful and objective

planning because policies are often motivated by political rationalizations. While this argument

seems reasonable it may be misleading for various reasons. Firstly, such an argument gives

67
primacy to functionalist approaches that emphasize the idea that there is one size fits all solution

for language problems that affect many nations, particularly in Africa. Second, it obscures the

link between the macro-economic factors and their relation to the promotion of the current state

of affairs and the status quo syndrome in Africa.

The language conundrum in Africa cannot be explained only by some sort of cultural and

linguistic relativity or “quasi-Whorfian” interpretation in which the will of power is expressed

through the African inculcation of Western world (Mazrui, 2004). Rather, the language question

in Africa should also be approached by exposing the reproduction of labor and market colonial

arrangements that still prevail between the South and North, and the West’s global control of

economic imperatives through international donor institutions such as the World Bank and the

International Monetary Fund and Donor governments (Mazrui, 2000). For example, no wonder

why in Somalia, the only Sub-Saharan country that uses an indigenous language as a medium of

instruction to the end of secondary school, the teaching of subjects such as medicine, engineering

and law at the higher education level continues to be conducted through the Italian language

because the Italian government provided the facilities, equipment, including the faculty

(Abdulaziz, 2003).

The above reflects only one instance of many cases in which donor countries set the

policies and the conditions for development projects in Africa. In fact, there is evidence about

the role that former colonial countries and institutions play in maintaining the dominance of their

languages in Africa. For example, Brock-Utne (2010) provides a nuanced review of the role of

the British Council in Tanzania and Namibia. She bemoans that the discourse of bilateral

relations is mere rhetoric because in reality the donor countries (Britain, France, Portugal) use

68
development aid to strengthen their own languages as a medium of instruction in Africa (Brock-

Utne, 2010). It is not surprising that the English Language is the sixth major source of income in

Great Britain. This money comes from the export of teaching materials such as books, training

English teachers from developing countries, students from abroad and of course the amount of

money that comes from language training for tourists (Lodhi, 1993).

As an experienced international consultant in the field of education, Alidou (2000)

demonstrates the complexity of the World Bank language politics in post-colonial Africa.

Although the World Bank (2005), recognizes the relevance of improving the quality of education

and the role that mother tongue education plays in achieving such goals, surprisingly enough, the

World Bank in its economic planning does not support language provision (Bilingual education)

for African countries. In the words of Alidou, the World Bank language experts have several

times confirmed that the World Bank does not have any explicit and comprehensive language in

education policies or financial support in view of the implications that such support would have

for French language policies in Francophone former colonies. Put differently, the French

language policies favor the continued use and promotion of French in post-colonial Africa to the

detriment of policies that would promote the use of African indigenous languages (Alidou, 2000,

2003, 2004). In fact, the World Bank and government donor politics of language and

development position for post-colonial Africa is reminiscent of colonial relations of subjugation

and exploitation, which tend to incorporate less developed nations into the global capitalist labor

markets (Stroud, 2007a). Another contribution that helps to understand the role that international

financial institutions, namely the World Bank play in the development of language education

policies in Africa comes from one the most prominent scholars and advocates for Africa

69
languages as medium of instruction, Ali Mazrui. Mazrui (2000) summarizes the impact of the

forces that hinder the use of African languages in education as follows:

The Euro-linguistic provision of educational instruction can be seen, therefore, as part of

a wider capitalist design. In essence, the World Bank’s recommendations for the

language of instruction in African schools, demonstrates its continued preference for

Euro-languages which create and maintain social divisions serving an economy

dominated primarily by foreign economic interests and, secondly a small aspiring African

bourgeoisie (pp. 54-55).

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, colonialism left behind a legacy of entrenched

relations of subjugation and linguistic marginalization that ex-colonial governments and donor

institutions use as assets in their will to continue to explore the post-colonial African state and its

resources. This is particularly important because it illuminates the role of language in education

policies in creating subjectivities among Africans and how language education policies might

shape and determine access to the labor markets (Rasool, 2007). The discourse of English as a

global language (Crystal, 2000, 2003) has been influential in language education policies in

Africa, especially in English speaking countries. As a result, the English medium of instruction

has become a powerful means for legitimating the hegemony of European languages. It is also

true that the state of affairs in post-colonial Africa is not only due to global macro-forces and the

capitalist and neoliberal models of development promoted by the World Bank, inter alia, the IMF

and donor governments in the North (Laitin,1992). Rather the African elites and bureaucrats

have also contributed to this state of affairs. Since the end of colonialism, language policies have

70
been used as pawns in the elites’ quest for the preservation of economic and political power

(Prah, 2000; Wolff, 2011).

In short, there is enough empirical evidence in favor of the use of African languages in

education; and anthropological linguists, sociolinguists, and linguists agree that the use of

language familiar to the learner has significant advantages over the use of exoglossic languages

(Chumbow, 2005, 2009, 2013). However, the stumbling block for implementation of all

recommended initiatives is the entrenched view that education in European languages will help

solve the problems of development in Africa. Moreover, the stigma attached to African

languages has relegated these languages to subaltern positions just as are the speakers of these

languages. Given the absolute dominance of European languages in the African the linguistic

market (Bourdieu, 1991), speakers of African languages have developed negative attitudes

toward their own languages (Adegbija, 1994, 2003; Pütz, 1995).

Bilingual education programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. The discourse that links

education to social and economic development in Africa is not new in Africa. Although the

rhetoric of development has been at the center of most political projects in African countries, for

many years the issue of the language of instruction has been totally neglected. It appears that in

most sub-Saharan African countries, apart from other socio-political and economic factors

language of instruction has been the chief culprit for school failure among the African children

(Alidou, Boly, Brock-Utne, Diallo, Heugh & Wolff, 2006; Heugh & Mulumba, 2014). To

confront this reality, most African nations are mobilizing to address the issue of language of

instruction through bilingual language policies. While bilingual pilot projects with emphasis to

mother tongue as the language of instruction have recently gained momentum, mother tongue

71
education programs are not a new undertaking in Africa. There are several reports of successful

mother tongue education programs in sub-Saharan Africa (Alidou et al., 2006; Akinnaso 1993).

One of these projects is the experiment named Ile-Ife project in Nigeria (Bamgbose, 1991). In

this project classes were taught in Yoruba for 3 years. The evaluation showed that the learners

excelled in all subject areas including, mathematics (Fafunwa, Macauley & Sokoya, 1989).

Another important example of successful programs in sub-Saharan Africa is the Research Project

for Language Education in Cameroon (PROPELCA) (Alidou et al., 2006; Obondo, 2008).

Many African sociolinguists (Bamgbose, 1991, Mansour, 1993) advocate for greater use

of African languages. Research has shown that successful learning takes place when students are

taught in the language they know well (Auerbach, 1993; Cummins, 2000, 2007; Thomas &

Collier, 1997) and that the consolidation of learners’ mother tongue facilitates second language

acquisition (Cummins, 1979). Unfortunately, in most African countries even those in which

preference is given to mother tongue instruction, transitional bilingual education is used (Küper,

2003a, 2003b). There are two different forms of transitional bilingual education programs: early

exit transition and late exit transition. In early exit programs content subjects are taught in two

languages; that is, the learners’ L1 and English or Portuguese depending on the language of

wider communication (Alidou et al., 2006; Ferguson, 2006; Heugh, 2011b).

The purpose of this model is to gradually transition the learners from mother tongue

instruction to the LWC. In this model the students’ L1 plays a temporary role; for this reason the

model has been characterized as a subtractive one (Ferguson, 2006). Conversely, in late

transitional bilingual programs, the transition to the language of wider communication (LWC)

takes longer than in early exit models. Unfortunately, in most of sub-Saharan Africa, where

72
bilingual education is implemented, early exit transitional bilingual education is preferred. With

few exceptions, in most programs the mother tongue is used for 3 or 4 years before the transition

to the dominant language medium (Obondo, 2008).

In regard to the early exit model, research has shown that it is ineffective in Africa,

particularly because “it can offer only a score of between 20% and 40% in the International

Language of Wider Communication (ILWC) by the end of school and this means failure across

the curriculum” (Heugh, 2006, p. 139). Multi-country studies such as the one conducted by the

second Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (SACMEQ

II) (Mothibely, 2005) revealed that:

By grade 6 more than 55% of students in 14 Southern and Eastern Africa countries have

not attained the most minimal level of literacy required to remain in the school system.

Only 14, 6 % have reached the desired level of literacy. (As cited in Heugh, 2006, p. 139)

Although education in most African countries is plagued by many social problems,

including poverty and diseases, studies from settings where these problems are not prevalent

reveal that students in similar programs such as early exit transitional bilingual education can

only be expected to reach an achievement of 37, 5 % in the language of learning by grade 6

(Ramirez, Yuen & Rameys, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In this respect, a relatively recent

study from South Africa are instructive. Systemic study of 6 grade learners from South Africa

(Heugh, 2006) shows that the national average achievement for students in grade 6 is 38 % for

literacy in the language of learning, and 27 % for mathematics (Heugh, 2006). The implication of

the results reported above is huge in countries with limited resources such as the ones in Africa.

73
 As mentioned in the preceding sections, the language policy project that is being carried

out by the Angolan government is based on the same 3 years early exit transitional program. If

such programs do not yield satisfactory results in developed countries such as the United States,

the question remains, to what extent will this program cater for the hailed diversity and heritage

maintenance? Although educational statistics for upper primary school in Zambia, Zimbabwe,

Mauritius and Namibia, indicate serious language and literacy problems among the students who

can barely read in English (Ferguson, 2006) the situation in Angola may not be different. From

an insider’s perspective, I would argue that the situation is more complex than the reports

recognize.

Reports from the educational reform in Angola reveal that teachers’ low proficiency of

Portuguese has been one of the causes of school failures (Government of Angola, 2008).

Acknowledging that language is not the sole problem that haunts education in Africa, Wolff

(2006) noted that language is not everything, but education for all is not possible without a clear

and inclusive language policy. In other words, given the fact that bilingual education in Angola

is a new undertaking, I contend that a late exit model would serve as a springboard (short term

goal) to developing an additive bilingual education, which according to many African scholars is

the long term desirable goal. Additive bilingual education programs or strong bilingual form of

bilingual education (Baker, 2001, 2011) aims not only to maintain, but also to enhance learners’

mother tongue (L1) while helping them learn the dominant language (e.g., Portuguese) and attain

language proficiency and literacy in both languages (Ferguson, 2006). According to Alidou et al.

(2006) appropriate additive bilingual education in Africa would have the following patterns:

74
 Mother tongue throughout with official or foreign language as a subject by specialist

teacher; Dual medium: mother tongue to at least grade 4-5 followed by gradual use of the

official language for up to no more 50 % of the day/ subject by the end of the school. (p.

5)

In the same vein, for implementing additive bilingual education in multilingual Africa,

Wolff (2006) makes the following remarks:

Additive bilingual education or trilingual educational systems, therefore, that would make

maximal use of the multilingual competence of children and adults, need to take the

prevalent communication patterns into account in the following way, i.e. the technical

notion of “bilingual” education needs to accommodate local/regional trilingual

instantiations with two additional L2 languages , as the situation for the children may

require where the local or community/area language is not the same as the relevant

national language, if such exists (p. 35)

The detractors of bilingual education in Africa, however, insist that language education is

costly and that in some cases continuing education in the language of the former colonizer is

financially cost effective. The truth, nevertheless, is that many African prominent scholars have

demystified the resource and cost effective fallacy. For example, Bamgbose (2000) and Obanya

(1995, 2003) have shown that these arguments are based more on fear about possible change and

the materials consequences of social change. While there are few studies on cost effectiveness in

education in Africa (Heugh, 2006), the few studies that address the myth of costs of mother

tongue instruction totally refute the argument that the costs of mother tongue instruction are

always higher than the instruction in the dominant language. Drawing from Grin (2005), Heugh

75
(2011), provides a very insightful account of costs for bilingual education programs. He aptly

observed that although under certain conditions language of wider communication (LWC) may

be less expensive than mother tongue (MT) bilingual education, the costs of teaching and

training are the same. Conversely, MT bilingual instruction will have an edge over LWC in

terms of learning outcomes in terms of higher test scores and lower dropouts. Table 6

summarizes the types of bilingual programs in selected Sub-Saharan African countries.

Table 6

MT and Bilingual Education Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa: Selected Countries

Countries Name of the Program Type of Program Years

Mozambique PEBIMO (Primary Bilingual Early Exit Transitional 1993-2003
Education Experiment in
Mozambique)
Nigeria Rivers Readers Project Early Exit Transitional 1970-1972
Nigeria Ife Mother Tongue Late Exit Transitional 1970-1978
Education Project (Fafanwa
et al., 1990)
Burkina Faso Bilingual Schools Bilingual (Dual Language) 1998-2006
Cameroon PROPELCA (Operational Bilingual (Dual Language) 1981
Research Project for
Language Education in
Cameroon)
Ghana Government Bilingual Bilingual (Dual Language) 1971-2002
Schools
South Africa PRAESA Multilingual Bilingual (Dual Language) 1992
Education; Teacher
Training; LOITOSA
South Africa Limpopo Literacy Project
Additive Bilingual Education 2004-2014
Programs (Developmental
Bilingual Education [DBE])
Note. Adapted from ADEA/UNESCO (2006) and Orekan (2011).

76
Language Policy in Angola

Sociolinguistic overview. Angola is located in the southern region of Africa and

bordered by DRC and Republic of Congo in the North and East, Zambia to the East, and

Namibia to the South. Linguistically the country has many ethno-linguistic groups which are

mainly Bantu and non Bantu. However, it is important to highlight the group of Bantu languages

involved in the policy under study. For my purposes, I concentrate on Bantu languages, not to

downplay the significance of non-Bantu languages for social development in Angola, but it is in

part to delimit my discussion to the languages in the current language policy, which is the object

of this study.

Genetically, the major languages spoken in Angola have their origin in Guthrie’s “Proto-

Bantu” and Niger-Kordofanian sub-family in the Niger-Congo group and consequently in

Bantuideo/Bantu.Guthrie’s classification divides the languages spoken in Angola in three

linguistic zones, namely H (Kikongo and Kimbundu), K (Cokwe, Ngangela, Lucaji, etc) and R

(Umbundu, Kwanyama, etc) (Nzau, 2011; D.P Sassuko, personal communication, September

10, 2013). Thus, in Angola the major ethno-linguistic groups are Ovimbundu whose language is

Umbundu with 37% of the population, the Mbundu who speak Kimbundu, with 25% of the

population and the Bakongo, who speak Kikongo, with 13 % of the population, respectively.

Geographically the Ovimbundu were historically concentrated in the provinces of Huambo and

Bie and the central high plateau. The Mbundu were mainly dominant and concentrated in the

capital and its hinterlands (Province of Bengo, Kwanza Norte and Sul), while the Bakongo were

historically concentrated in the North –Western provinces of Zaire, Uige and Cabinda (Bender,

2004, Hodges, 2001). The figures above are drawn from the census of 1960 (Hodges, 2001).

77
Coming back to the current sociolinguistic situation, a survey conducted by The Angolan

National Institute of Statistics (INE) in 1996, indicates that the number of speakers who speak

indigenous languages in each ethno-linguistic group has dramatically decreased. These statistics

revealed that in 1996, 30 % of the population speaks Umbundu as a mother tongue, 26% of the

population speaks Portuguese as a mother tongue, 16 % of the populations speak Kimbundo, 8 %

speak Kikongo, 6% speak Cokwe and 14 % other languages. These figures clearly catapult

Portuguese to the position of the second most widely spoken language in Angola (Hodges,

2001). The reasons for such radical change in the number of speakers of Portuguese are

manifold. First, after independence in 1975 the country adopted Portuguese both as the official

language of the country and the sole official language of instruction.

Since independence in 1975, the country has had various language statements, namely in

the constitution and recently in the law for education systems (Augusto, 2012). It is, however,

important to stress that the first initiatives in language and literacy involving African languages

took place early in the 80s. Under the Decree of the Council of Ministers of 1987 the

orthographies of the six languages shown in Table 2 were standardized with their phonological

transcription. Within this context, after the creation of the National Institute of Languages, the

same orthographies were approved by the resolution 3/87 of 23 May of 1987 of the Council of

Ministers. However, after the standardization of the orthographies, the language question was

almost forgotten. As shown in table 7, despite their sluggish use in the media, African languages

remained and still are at the margins in Angola.

78
Table 7
Genetic Classification of African Languages and Domains of Language Use
Languages Linguistic Classification
Group
Portuguese Indo-European, Italic,
Romance, Italo-Western,
Western Gallo-Iberian,
Ibero-Romance, West-
Iberian, Portuguese-Galician
Umbundu Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
R10 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu,
Central
Kimbundu Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
H20 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu,
Central
Kikongo Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
H10 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu,
Central
Cokwe Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
K20 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu,
Central
Kwanjama Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
R20 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu,
Central
Ngangela Niger-Kongo, Atlantic-
K20 Congo, Volta-Congo,
Benue-Congo, Bantoid,
Southern, Narrow Bantu
Note. Lewis et al. (2014); Diarra, (2003).
79
Status Domain/Function
Official Education, Administration,
Politics, Mass Media, Official
activities (Government)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families) Government(Very
limited), Literacy (Informal)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families) Government(Very
limited), Literacy (Informal)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families) Government(Very
limited) , Literacy (Informal)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families) Government(Very
limited), Literacy (Informal)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families)
National Media (Limited), and
Restricted situations( Religion,
traditional ceremonies,
families)
 Colonial language policies in Angola. As discussed in the section of language policies

in Sub-Saharan African, what was common to the colonial language politics in Africa is that,

they used language as a mechanism of control. In Angola, the prohibition of African languages

was legally sanctioned by the famous colonial decree no. 77 known as Decreto de Norton de

Matos (Norton de Matos’ decree), of 1921, published in the official gazette of the province of

Angola. Jose Ribeiro Norton de Matos was the Portuguese higher commissioner of the overseas

province of Angola (Augusto, 2012, Laitin, 1992; Zau, 2011). This decree literally prohibited the

use of indigenous languages in official settings. Official settings included, inter alia, schools and

churches. The more explicit Articles of this decree were the 2nd and 3rd. Article 2 of this decree

reads as follows: it is not allowed to teach indigenous languages in any missionary school.

Article 3 stated that the use of indigenous languages is only permissible in speech, in the

teaching of catechism, and at the elementary level as support of Portuguese (Zau, 2011, my

translation).

In fact, the Portuguese government also prohibited the use of other colonizers languages

particularly English. In 1903, the Portuguese colonial government explicitly prohibited the use of

English in Angolan Schools. The Portuguese government’s assimilation policy totally

discouraged the use of indigenous languages. It is significant to note that education and social

privileges were granted according to the status of assimilado (assimilated). The status of

assimilado was granted to Angolans under the conditions that they mastered the language of their

masters. The assimilados were the ones who had the privilege to receive education, while

Angolans chiefly in rural areas were deprived of the right to education (Spencer, 1971, 1974).

Although, colonial language policies have had great influence on current linguistic practices in

80
Angola, recent developments have ushered more democratic discussions about the status of

African languages as well as Portuguese.

The status agenda in LPP debate in Angola. Within the context of language policy

debate, the discussions have centered on the role of African languages in social and cultural life

vis-à-vis the hegemony of Portuguese in public life. In this respect, scholars inter alia

intellectuals have shown concern about language status as provided in the basic education law

and the draft of the 2010 Constitution published in the media for the purpose of collecting

contributions from the public. Referring to the hegemony of Portuguese vis-à-vis the African

languages, Mateus (2009) noted that “the Portuguese language has officially become the

language for building the nation; this has not been done by consensus, but by imposition” (p.1,

my translation). Mateus has suggested that the hegemony of the Portuguese language has been

forged through institutional practices that undermine the co-existence with other languages. He

noted that although rhetorically the Constitution recognizes that Angola is a multiethnic nation,

the statuses conferred to Portuguese clearly override the possibility to promote the existence of a

multilingual nation. Finally, he bemoans that the constitutional rhetoric of 1975 remains. Despite

the commitment to promote the African languages (national languages), the non-existence of

appropriate laws to regulate the status of these languages reveals the subaltern position and role

they play the linguistic market.

As demonstrated in the ecology or domains of language use in Table 2, African

languages continue to be confined to restrictive social functions (Diarra, 2003). The findings of

this study demonstrate that African languages are restricted to family and traditional ceremonies

because of the stigma attached to these languages. The dominant discourses reinforce the view

81
that a good command of Portuguese equals social mobility and the use of African languages

leads to backwardness (Mateus, 2009). Zau (2009) questions the status of African languages vis-

à-vis the language provision in the 2010 Constitution. He questioned whether the colonial

language policies and the policies adopted by the state in the post-colonial time, specifically the

Portuguese only medium of instruction, have positively contributed to meaningful school

experiences and efficient exercise of citizenship. He noted that looking at the old Constitution,

the Constitution of 2010 and the basic education law, it is clear that these texts remain

unchanged.

Suffice it to say that, the new language policy constitutes a commendable effort on the

part of the Angolan government. However, with the early exit program, the problem of the legal

status of African languages, and the stigma attached to African languages, it is clear that the

projection of these languages into the public and official life of the country will continue to be

uncertain and sluggish (Katupha, 1994). Zau (2010), for example, noted that African languages

also deserve official status. Although the official status alone would not solve the problem, the

issue of official status is of paramount importance in the context of language equation in Angola.

There is consensus that status planning is the driving mechanism of any language

maintenance and preservation efforts. Fishman (1991) sustains that the allocation of the status

provides greater chances to improve societal functions of language. Cobarrubias (1983) noted

that the retention of language function depends to some extent on the legal status. The problem

of the status of African languages is not only confined to Angola alone. Professor Bamgbose, a

Nigerian linguist, noted that what hindered the development of African languages into more

powerful languages are their low status and the restricted domain of use (Bamgbose, 2011). He

82
noted that the argument of backwardness used against African languages is no longer acceptable

within the context of modern linguistics and sociolinguistic. He charged that, all languages are

well endowed with resources that can express any concept. Within this context, he proposed

several alternative avenues for empowering African languages: (1) Increasing the domains of use

(education, legislature, administration, judiciary system, etc.); (2) the scope of promotion should

be multidimensional (local, regional, and international); and (3) medium of instruction. Cenoz

and Jessner (2009) note that, the status and prestige of a language should not be ignored in

language education policy; status and prestige have influence on learners’ attitudes and choice in

learning a second or additional language.

To reiterate, the status debate constitutes an important contribution to the language policy

issue, especially because the promotion of bilingual policy will depend not only on improving

the status of African languages, but also its image and functional value in the linguistic market.

The metaphor of linguistic market originally used in Bordieu (1991) captures the ecological

situation of languages in Angola. In order, to guarantee parental acceptance of African languages

as an efficient medium of instruction equal to Portuguese, an improvement in their status is

crucial. It is also a truism that legal status alone will not inevitably guarantee the use of African

languages. It has been mentioned throughout this chapterer that evidence from various sites,

specifically the PROPELCA (The Operational Research Project for Language Education in

Cameroonian) (Tadadjeu, 2004) that bottom up initiatives are good strategies for promoting

language use. If we cannot change the attitudes of the owners of the language being promoted,

no legal status can be useful (Romaine, 2002, 2006). In other words, even formal instruction of

African languages will be meaningless without the involvement of parents and communities.

83
However meaningless it may be, the allocation of official status would definitely give these

language another dimension and an opportunity to compete with the Portuguese language

(Cobarrubias, 1983). Looking at the current language education policy and the new Constitution,

it is clear that the country has definitely shifted and departed from its past monolingual and

Portuguese only policy. However, it is a common practice in African policy-making that policies

are mere statements of good intentions that do not go beyond these intentions (Bamgbose, 1991,

2000). Although the statements in the current language policy do not mention the possibility of

dual language instruction or bilingual education, it is the hope of this author that the current

policy will pave the way toward a bilingual language education policy in Angola.

The 1990 Luso-Brazilian Orthographic Accord and the PALOPs. It is a truism that

Language Planning and Language Policy (LPP) is an ideological endeavor connected with

symbolic, political, and cultural values; and orthography or spelling reform is only one of the

activities of language planning, to be sure, corpus planning (Cooper, 1989). It has been reiterated

throughout this paper that it is an unnecessary mistake to regard languages merely as a means of

communication; rather languages are also attached to personal and emotional expressions of their

speakers, as well as to their cultural heritage and traditions (Christ, 1997). The observation above

captures the character of discourses and ideologies that have shaped and influenced the debate

over the promulgation of the so called Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord. As will be apparent

from the discussion, I follow Garcez (1993) that the accord is termed Luso-Brazilian because it is

mainly concerned with the geo-political and geo-linguistic interests of the two nations, namely

Portugal and Brazil (Garcez, 1992; Zúquete, 2008). Therefore, the main concern of this section is

to examine the conditions, discourses, and ideologies that surround the promulgation of the

84
referred orthographic accord. Although Angola has not yet ratified the accord, the accord

represents an important aspect of LPP and language education reform in Angola; and therefore it

deserves attention within this study.

It is important to provide a historical background of the orthographic accord or spelling

reform debate globally, and specifically in Portugal, Brazil, and Angola‒ in order to chart the

motivations, rationale, and assumptions behind spelling reform, and how these discourses from

both countries have come to shape and influence people’s perceptions about spelling reform.

Next, I provide the socio-historical and political context of the Luso-Brazilian accord and the

nature of the involvement of the PALOP’s (African countries with Portuguese as Official

language) in the accord. The PALOPs consist of six countries, former colonies of Portugal,

namely Angola, Cabo-Verde, Guine-Bissau, São Tomé e Principe, and the newly independent

nation of Timor Leste. Finally, I discuss the socio-cultural, economic, and political implications

of the orthographic agreement for the ongoing language education reform in general, and

specifically for the implementation of the current language education policy in Angola.

The debate over spelling or orthography is not an isolated event. In many parts of the

globe, an orthographic reform has always been a contentious issue. An illustration of the

problems at the center orthographic reform can be found in Linguistic Authority, Language

Ideology, and Metaphor: the Czech Orthography Wars (Bermel, 2007), which discusses

language and orthographic reform in the Czech Republic, Ideology and alphabet in the former

USSR (Sebba, 2006), Spelling Trouble? Language, Ideology and the Reform of German

Orthography (S. Johnson, 2005), which discusses the orthographic reform in Germany. From the

studies mentioned above, we have learned that spelling reform is a contentious activity; thus an

85
orthographic reform constitutes a site of struggle for competing ideologies and cultural

discourses (Eira, 1998). From the reform of German orthography insights, it can be gleaned that

within the orthographic reform debates language ideologies represent not only the perceptions

and discourses about language, but also the economic, political, cultural, and traditional interests

of various actors and agents (Bow, 2013; Eira, 1998; S. Johnson, 2005).

Returning to the 1990 Luso-Brazilian orthographic agreement, the main goal of this

discussion is to give the reader better understanding of what is at stake in this accord. The debate

over the unification of the Portuguese language orthography pre-dates the existence of the

modern Angola (see Cardozo, 1944; Garcez, 1993; Zúquete, 2008). In other words, although

currently involving the PALOPs (Angola, Mozambique and São Tomé e Principe) the Luso-

Brazilian orthographic accord has its genesis in the history of colonialism. The negotiation of the

accord started in a historical moment when Portugal was still colonizing the so called nations of

the PALOPs. While there have been many attempts to unify the Portuguese language, according

to Cardozo (1944), the negotiations for the unification of the orthography between Portugal and

Brazil had reached its advanced stage in 1931. Although promulgated in Portugal, the resulting

agreement was never implemented in Brazil for the same reasons mentioned above; however, it

paved the way for the Luso-Brazilian orthographic agreement negotiated in 1986 and

consolidated in 1990 with the involvement of the PALOPs (Garcez, 1993, 1995).

Cultural discourses and ideological debates in Portugal, Brazil and Angola. It is

noteworthy that in three countries— Portugal, Brazil, and Angola the orthographic agreement

has raised many controversies, conflicting discourses, and opposing voices. In Portugal the

accord debate opposes two camps: those who agree with the unification of spelling (acordistas)

86
and those who disagree with the accord (desacordistas) (Zúquete, 2008). The proponents see the

orthographic agreement as an opportunity not only for vindicating the Portuguese language, but

also for projecting it geo-politically and geo-linguistically. Proponents accuse the opponents of

the orthographic accords of being nostalgic to the old traditions, culture, and the fascist imperial

era. On the other hand, the opponents concede that although language change is inevitable, an

imposed change undermines the prospects of democracy. In addition, they observe that

unification of the orthography is not inevitable. In their view, the orthography reform aims at

reinforcing homogenization; in doing so the accord threatens the democratic values that

undergird the principle of diversity in unity.

In Brazil the discourses surrounding the debates on the agreement hinge on the same

topics and arguments. Massini-Cagliari (2004) argued that, the orthographic accord has no

linguistic basis because it does not affect the structure of the language per se. Rather she argued

that, the problem is a diplomatic and a juridical one, since the orthographic accord is regulated

by a law in both Brazil and Portugal. She charges that given the insignificant differences in the

adopted orthographic accord, the best solution would have been to give an official status or

recognition of the few words that are spelled differently in both orthographic systems (Massini-

Cagliari, 2004, 2006). In a similar vein, Garcez (1995) provides an outline of the sociolinguistic

situation of the PALOPs, specifically the status of Portuguese in both Angola and Mozambique.

However, Garcez (1995) bemoaned that, more often than not, for economic and political reasons,

the PALOPs accept whatever the two countries propose (Brazil and Portugal).

Although Garcez may to some extent be right, the generalization about the PALOPs

being the prey of the Brazil and Portugal does not correspond to what is happening in practice. In

87
fact, given the implications that the agreement might have on the ongoing educational reform in

Angola, the Angolan government has not yet ratified the Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord.

Moreover, such an argument undermines the agency of the people of Angola. This is an

important aspect mainly when most countries within the PALOPs including Angola are still

grappling with the status planning pertaining to the position of the African languages. This

brings us to the issue of nurturing the Angolan variant of Portuguese to which I shall return later.

It is noteworthy that the debates about the orthographic agreement are mainly found within the

official discourse and intellectual circles in Jornal de Angola (the official newspaper of the

country).

Similar to Brazil and Portugal, in Angola available discourses also point to conflicting

and opposing views about the usefulness of the accord. In 2012, the minister of education

announced that the application of the orthographic accord posed some challenges and the there

was a need for corrective measures before the ratification and application in Angola (Silva,

2012). One of the aspects alluded to by the minister was that the orthographic accord posed

economic challenges within the context of the ongoing educational reform. In addition, he also

mentioned that the accord did not take into account the reality of African languages (national

languages). He specifically observed that the spelling reform neglected the socio-linguistic

reality of Angola (Simão, 2012). Some scholars have asked the Angolan government and

intellectuals to rectify and reflect before even ratifying the orthographic accord (Wa-zani, 2012).

Wa-Zani (2012), noted that that “a perspectiva utópica da existência de uma única grafia da

linguaPortuguesa, causam evidentemente, constragimentos” (p. 1). (The utopic perspective of the

existence of the unified spelling for the Portuguese languages will obviously cause constraints,

88
my translation). Others scholars noted that Angola might benefit from the implementation of the

accord (Zau, 2010). As mentioned earlier, the constraints that may stem from the orthographic

accord will affect the enormous investment that the state has channeled into the reform of school

books, and manuals with possible educational consequences in the long run (Wa-zani, 2012). For

example, the proposed changes of spelling in the European Portuguese spelling and the Brazilian

spelling in some cases privilege and affect only the syllabic level, but not the phonemic level.

From the word acção (action) (European Portuguese) and ação (Brazilian Portuguese), it can be

gleaned that even with the elision of the consonant /c/ at the graphemic level the phonemic

structure of the word ação remains unchanged. The same analysis applies to words such as actor,

tacto (tact), protector (Protector), sector (sector), selecção (selection), exacto (exact), baptism

(baptism), exepção (exception), to name but these few cases. Moreover, the same words have

almost maintained the same spelling in languages such as Spanish (actor, factor). The example

above highlights how linguistic reforms are often rooted in political and economic arguments

while the pragmatic use of language is neglected.

To summarize, from the discussions on the Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord in

Portugal, Brazil, and Angola, it can be inferred that the accord is seen by opponents as

linguistically, socio-culturally, and historically inadequate and undermines the creativity of the

speakers to highlight the richness of Portuguese as it is spoken in the PALOPs, that is, the hybrid

and dynamic repertoires that characterize the sociolinguistic situation in most African countries

with Portuguese as official language; whereas the proponents consider the accord as

diplomatically convenient, therefore providing a life time opportunity to project the Portuguese

language into the global sphere.

89
 The challenges of the orthographic accord: The way forward. As mentioned earlier,

the discourse and ideology of Lusofonia (Schӓffner, 1997; Schӓffner & Kelly-Holmes, 1996)

have been motivated by many factors (Arenas, 2003, 2011; Lopes, 1998). Although theoretically

meant to promote cooperation in various areas of development, including education, its

homogenizing power cannot be underestimated. A striking example of its political and cultural

agenda is epitomized in the orthographic agreement that has already been ratified in the PALOPs

by countries such as Cape-Verde and São Tome e Principé (Morais, 2010). The promotion of an

orthographic agreement upholds the monoculture ideals and undermines the promotion of

multilingualism and linguistic diversity not only in Angola, but also in other Lusophone

(Portuguese speaking) countries that are affected by it (Morais, 2010). In this respect, for

example, Morais (2010) argued that “ in theory the argument seems a reasonable plan that will

function to expedite business and intercultural exchange among the Lusophone countries and

promote the international visibility of the language” (p. 90). However, in promoting a unified

spelling system, the CPLP downplays the fact that in Angola and other countries, the Portuguese

language has been appropriated as a result of language contact with African languages.

In other words, the Angolan variant of Portuguese (Nzau, 2011) represents not only a

socio-historical contribution of the Angolan people to the Portuguese language, but it also a

symbol of resistance against the colonial and neo-colonial domination. This brings us to the crux

of the problem, which is the language in education policy. For example, while the introduction of

the letters K, W, Y in the Portuguese alphabet might help to accommodate the words from

African Bantu languages, the question remains to what extent will such change help in terms of

planning language instruction? Another question is, what difference would it make changing the

90
spelling of some words when we know that the principle of phoneme and grapheme equivalence

that the accord strives to achieve is rarely achieved in practice?

To summarize, I have argued that language policies that aim at promoting African

languages and bilingualism face many challenges. Despite the fact that colonial language

policies have had considerable impact and influence on language policies in post-colonial

Africa, current initaitives represent an important step toward the democratization of education

and promotion of multilingual societies in Africa and Angola specifically. It is also important to

note that bilingual education should be seen as a panacea (Hornberger, 2010), to the myriads of

the problems that encumber education inn Angola. Regarding the unification of the Portuguese

language spelling system between Brazil, Portugal and the PALOPs, it is clear that such an

accord undermines linguistic diversity, obscures the economic and political motivation behind it,

and negates the dynamic character of language.

91
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

According to Crotty (1998), identifying the methodologies and methods to be used in a

research project constitutes the starting point for developing any research project. Crotty defines

methodology as “the strategy, plan of actions, and process of design lying behind the choice and

use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (p.

3). In other words, when a researcher selects a particular research method he/she chooses some

techniques to analyze the data and answer the research questions. Because I sought Angolan

teachers, students, parents, and politicians’ understandings of Angolan language policies, I chose

to situate my study in the qualitative paradigm of research. Qualitative interpretive research is a

contextually, politically and historically bound endeavor. The goal of this approach is to gather

an in-depth understanding of human experience. First, I detail the setting and the participants of

this study. Second, I discuss critical discourse analysis as the method I used to analyze the data

and answer the research questions. Next, the section discusses CDA as a method of analysis used

in qualitative research and the criticism against it. This is followed by the presentation of data

sources. Next, the chapter details CDA tools used for the analysis of the data. This is followed by

the discussion of interviewing procedures and details about the coding process, validity and

ethical considerations. The chapter ends with the limitations of the study and future research.

Setting and Participants

Interview data was collected via telephone with participants in Luanda, Angola. The

study involved the participation of 14 participants: two policy-makers, three linguists, and two

school administrators, two students, two parents, and two teachers. One of the two teachers is a

92
member of the committee on African Languages at the National Institute for Development of

Education (INIDE). Another teacher is an undergraduate student at the school of languages and

teaches the Portuguese language at one of the public secondary schools in the capital city

Luanda. Teachers age range between 23-35 years.The two learners interviewed in this study are

also language students at the school of languages at the Agostinho Neto University and are in

their mid-20s. The teachers and the learners have proficiency in at least two or three languages,

including English. The teachers in this study work in public and private schools and teach either

English or Portuguese. The parents who were interviewed are in their mid and late 40s and both

have command of at least three languages. One of the parents is a woman who works in the

house and the other parent works for an airline as an accountant. The linguists that were

interviewed are also multilingual speakers, who have three or four languages, in their linguistic

repertoire. One of the linguists was trained in England and other linguist in Russia. Both linguists

are in their mid 40s. My choice of teachers, parents, linguists, and students is justified by the fact

they were recommended by the potential candidates I contacted before the interviewing process.

In order words, these participants were selected because they represent the social institutions that

are the sites in which language policies are negotiated and enacted.

The two policy-makers (a woman and a man) represent of the national legislature of the

country, and both have proficiency in three languages, including English. The policy-makers

interviewed are in their mid and late 40s as well. The school administrators who were

interviewed in this study have partial communicative competence of Portuguese, English and

proficiency in at least one African indigenous language are in their late 30s. One school

administrator works in a public primary education school and the second works in a private

93
secondary school in the capital city. It is important to note that, all participants are originally

from the different regions of Angola and most of them suggested having partial communicative

competence of Portuguese.

Table 8

Participants’ Demographic Facts

Participant Work place Age First Language Other languages

Linguist Public University 43 years Umbundu Portuguese, English
Linguist Private University 45 years Kikongo Portuguese, English, French
Linguist Public University 44 years Portuguese English, Umbundu
Teacher Secondary Level 23 years Kimbundu Portuguese, French, English
Teacher Secondary Level 35 years Umbundu Portuguese, English
Teacher Ed University 45 years Kimbundu Portuguese, English
Student Secondary level 23 years Portuguese Kimbundu, English
Student Secondary level 24 years Umbundu Portuguese, English
Parent Aviation 45 years Kikongo Portuguese, English, French
Parent Works home 46 years Kimbundu Portuguese, English
School Adm Secondary level 36 years Portuguese Kimbundu, English
School Adm Secondary level 35 years Kikongo Portuguese, English
Policy maker National legislature 46 years Kimbundu Portuguese, English
Policy maker National legislature 47 years Portuguese Umbundu, English
Note. In the table school adm. stands for school administrator

The participants were selected using a purposive and snowball sampling method

(Creswell, 2014; Reed, 2011; Seidman, 2006; Yin, 2011; Weiss, 1994). Unlike most quantitative

methodologies which have strict rules for sampling, qualitative studies do not (Patton, 2002).

However, this does not mean that qualitative researchers espouse a laissez-faire sampling

approach. The number of participants depends on what the researcher wants to know, what will

be useful, who has credibility and who is available (Patton, 2002, 2014). Regarding the number

of participants for interviewing, Kvale (1996) is straightforward. He noted that researchers

94
should interview as many participants as needed to answer the research questions. Unlike the

positivist research that seeks external validity (Generalizability) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005),

interpretive policy studies use interpretive communities as a rationale for sampling. An

interpretive community is grounded in purposive and snowball sampling selection. In other

words, the researcher selects key informants who in turn help to identify potential interviewees

(Yanow, 2000). The interpretive policy analyst, as Yanow (2000) observed, needs to build a

context in which to access knowledge. In other words, participants are selected based on shared

knowledge that they may contribute in understanding the issues and questions asked in the study.

Policy makers were included in the study because they may provide insights into the

socio-historical and political context and the conditions in which language policies are created.

One of the participants, has for years, been part of the regional efforts for the revalorization of

African languages within the context of Southern Africa Development Community (SADC)

(Kamwendo, 2009a, 2009b). My main goal was to create a sample, which can help to illuminate

the conditions under which the examined policies were produced, circulated, and gauge the

perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of various agents involved or affected by the language policy in

Angola. The participants represent a range of perspectives from diverse contexts, levels of

institutional authority.

Method

In this study, I used discourse analysis methods. I primarily relied on critical discourse

analysis (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 2010) and Foucault’s discourse insights (Foucault, 1972).

Using interpretive qualitative methodologies, this project is an attempt to uncover the competing

ideologies and discursive practices, which shape and influence the formation, negotiation,

95
appropriation or implementation of language in education policy in Angola. Interviewing is one

of the most widely used data collection methods in qualitative policy analysis (Yanow &

Schwartz-Shea, 2006; Yanow, 2000, 2007, 2011), and qualitative discourse analysis in the social

sciences (Wodak & Meyer, 2009; Wodak & Krzyzanowski, 2008) in particular. The purpose of

qualitative interviewing is to understand the lived experiences and understanding of participants

in respect to the phenomena of study (Kvale, 1996; Siedman, 2006).

The analysis of language education policy requires a multidimensional and

interdisciplinary framework. In fact, some scholars have argued that language education policy

should not be analyzed only from a discursive and linguistic perspective alone. Unger (2013)

conducted a language policy study in Scotland using CDA. Unger (2013) drew from top-down

data such as policy documents and excerpts from law and with bottom-up data collected from

language users affected by the policies. He noted that the use of top-down and bottom-up data

provides insights about the different levels of discourse (macro, micro, meso) and illuminates

how different policy actors and the affected groups instrumentalize and interpret discourses on

language use and language varieties.

Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000) have argued that the historical analysis, that is, the

intertextual chain in CDA does not go far enough in exposing the historicity of the text. They

noted that CDA could benefit from incorporating Foucault’s insights which provide historical

theoretical insights. Blommaert and Bulcaen’s criticism of CDA hinges on issues of

interpretation and context. Blommaert (2001) noted that CDA pays little attention to context and

called for dynamic approach to data analysis. He noted that contextualization of data could

remedy CDA problems of interpretation. In order words, Blommaert suggested that CDA

96
analyses texts out of context. In addition, Blommaert argued that CDA would greatly benefit by

including layered analysis of social events and linguistic resources and contextualizing discourse

data in order to provide a historicized positioning. Blommaert and Bulcaen go on to say that

CDA is still trapped in linguistics, which prevents incorporating linguistic and non-linguistic

dimensions of semiosis (apparent for instance, in the very partial interpretation of Foucault’s

discourse in Fairclough’s (1989) work. In this respect, Lemke (1995) observed that although

powerful, Foucault’s discourse approach is limited because it lacks linguistic analysis.

Conversely, Lemke (1995) bemoaned that the social-historical context of discourse and

discourse as a form of social action have been largely ignored in discourse analysis research and

called for a social theory of discourse that is critical and accounts for what people do with

discourses and the consequences of the discursive practices. In addition, CDA has been criticized

for being ideologically and methodologically over-determined (Widdowson, 1995). In this

respect, Hammersly (1997) argued that all critical research, specifically CDA, is value laden, and

that it cannot be grounded in the methodological assumptions of conventional research. In other

words, Hammersley is contesting the status of CDA as research that aims to produce

‘scientifically’ based knowledge. (see Breeze, 2011; Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui

& Joseph, 2005; Slembrouck, 2001; Stubbs, 1997 for review of CDA criticisms).

This study responds to these critiques, and calls for a socio-historical analysis of policy

documents (Tollefson, 1991) and the policy discursive contexts of the national legislature, local

discourses and how various agents (legislators, linguists, teachers, parents, educators) interpret

and negotiate top-down policies from the state. Fairclough’s CDA framework and Foucauldian

discourse insights provide the necessary tools and insights to respond to this call. Olssen et al.,

97
(2004) observe that policy documents embody discursive practices that underlie dynamic social

relations. Language education policies not only regulate such practices, but also contain

meanings that need to be interpreted. It should be noted that the use of interview in CDA

reaserch is less common, therefore incorporating interviews in this study represents an important

contribution.

Data Sources

For the purposes of intertextual and interdiscursive analysis, the corpora of texts under

consideration were constituted by the verbatim from interviews. The verbatim were used to map

intertextual links between the discourses from media debate and participants’ accounts and

perspectives; excerpts from 5 five sampled articles from a corpus of 16 newspaper articles from

the Angolan main newspaper (The Angolan Newspaper) figuring reactions and debates (2009-

2012) about the policy under analysis. The five articles were selected because they figure rich

accounts of the language question and perspectives that may illuminate the conflicts,

contradictions, and challenges regarding the language education policy under study.

The data also included extracts from the Angolan Constitution of 2010 containing

language education provision, namely the article 19 line 1 and 2 and the article 87 line 1 and 2

respectively; the corpora also included extracts from the language policy under study, namely

Article 3, article 9, article 10 line 1 and article 17 line 1 respectively. Consistent with

Fairclough’s model, the data was analyzed at the three levels — the analysis of policy documents

and statuses to conduct a critical analysis of textual features, textual and discursive analysis to

look at the intertextual and interdiscursive relations and patterns, and the analysis of the

sociocultural and historical contexts (institutions) beyond the discourse level in order to situate

98
the language policy arguments within the ideology critique (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012). The

materials for analysis have a meaning potential that can illuminate the historical, cultural, and

political connections between the various discourses and language policy production, circulation,

and interpretation.

Table 9

Data Sources

Policy Documents Media Excerpts Interviews

Angolan Official Language
Policy
The Angolan Constitution of
2010
Basic Education Law
2 Excerpts from public Interviews conducted with the
newspaper (Jornal de Angola) 14 participants
published in 2009
2 Excerpts from public idem
newspaper (Jornal de Angola)
published in 2010
1 Excerpts from public idem
newspaper (Jornal de Angola)
published in 2012

From a social semiotic perspective “texts are the products or records of social meaning

making practices” (Thibault, 1991, p. 230), thus constituting an important part of the data on

which I based the assumptions of the constitution of social formation (Fairclough, 2010; Kress,

1993, 2001; Thibault, 1991). Critical examination and analysis of policy documents was

important for this study given that, as social and cultural artifacts, documents reflect not only the

interests and perspectives of their authors, but also encapsulate intended or unintended values

and ideologies (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; Love, 2003). In addition, policy documents are

sites in which policy authors and agents make claims to power and legitimacy (Lindlof & Taylor,

2011).

99
Data Analysis

Along with traditional qualitative approach (interviewing), I used critical discourse

analysis (Fairclough (1989, 2010; Johnson, 2011b; Wodak, 2001, 2006; Wodak & Fairclough,

2010) and insights from Foucault’s (1977) influenced discourse analytic approach (e.g., Allan et

al., 2010). The data or texts under study included spoken interaction (interviews) and written

texts (excerpts from newspapers and language policies). Yanow (2000) noted that documents and

artifacts constitute a useful starting point for any interpretive policy study. According to this

approach, language, objects, and the acts involved in policy analysis have a meaning potential

that is open to interpretation by agents and actors who may be the targets of the policy (Yanow,

2000). Based on Fairclough’s three dimensional model discussed within the framework in

chapter 1, the data from interview data and language policy documents were analyzed at the

following three levels: (1) The analysis of language or text, (2) the intertextual and

interdiscursive relationships between texts, utterances, genres and discourses, and (3) the extra-

linguistic social and institutional frames of specific situations; the analysis of socio-political and

historical contexts (socio-cultural).

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) can successfully illuminate “the discourses within and

without the language policy text and intertextual connections to other policies” (Johnson, 2009b).

CDA can help to capture the relationship between the micro and macro-societal levels of

language policy discourses. Relying on CDA (Fairclough, 1992a, 1992b, 2010; Johnson, 2009c,

2011, 2012), I analyzed policy documents and other available extracts of discourse primarily

through textual based discourse analysis, which attended to the intertextual relations, socio-

historical, and ideological context of discourse (Fairclough, 1992a). At this level I analyzed the

100
content of discourse and fragments of discourse (Baker & Galansiski, 2001), by identifying the

use of pronouns, fallacies, topoi, and modality.

Tools for analysis. The use of textual features and linguistic structure as discursive

strategies to position participants in a discursive field is an important ideological tool used to

construct knowledge, set social boundaries, and reinforce language ideology of differentiation

(Irvine & Gal, 2000). Pronouns are one such linguistic feature that is prominently used as

indexical of speakers’ position within a particular interaction (Levison, 1979; Wortham, 1996).

Such linguistic devices have been used in linguistics in relation to semantic analysis. However,

such an approach to deixis, or pronoun usage, has been more recently criticized for leaving out

the social aspects and implications of deixis in the construction of social boundaries and

identities (Cramer, 2009). Levison (1979) recognized that social deixis as an important aspect of

language and discourse because pronouns not only provide referential information that needs to

be contextualized, but are also indexical of speakers positions in reference to the audience or

reader.

Cramer (2009) argued that an important way in which participant construe social

boundaries and social identities is the use of pronouns. Wortham’s (1996) mapping of deitics in

teachers’ footing in interaction has demonstrated that language use creates and transforms social

relations. The notion of footing was developed by Ervin Goffman. Footing is the notion that

when people talk they can speak as either the authors of their speech or the as animators of other

people’s words (Goffman, 2001). For example, one of the participants in this study evoked

Agostinho Neto, the former president of Angola speech about the relevance of maintaining

African languages. In doing so, the participant unconsciously endorsed the president’s nationalist

101
ideologies in which language is seen as the symbol of nationhood and culture that need to be

protected in the sacrosanctity of the past (Ensibk, 1997; Schaffner, 1997).

From the intertextuality perspective, we see that the content and structure of Presidents

speech is designed in such way that the participant was able to find the relevant passage and

embed it into his own discourse by a means of a quotation (Sauer, 1997). This demonstrates the

power of rhetoric in political discourse. Borrowing Goffman’s concept of footing, Ensink (1997),

notes that politicians “perform speeches the main task of which is to establish and express a

perspective which is representative for the nation” (p.5). Thus, footing stresses the various roles

and functions that speakers and hearers perform in particular discursive events. Coming back to

the use of pronouns Wortham noted that the use of first person plural pronoun ‘We’ refers to

“the speaker and some others” (Wortham, 1996, p. 336). Drawing upon Anderson’s (1993)

notion of imagined communities, Silverstein (2000) explored the use of deixis in the construction

of the linguistic imaginary of nationalism. He observes that “We” aims at constructing an

imaginary normative consciousness that often the speakers share with others. He notes that the

use “We” has been prominently used as an umbrella for sustaining homogenous national identity

and language.

Therefore, in this study I used pronominal analyses to map how the use of deixis serves

for indexing individuals’ positions and identities within the language policy discourse that shape

the policies. Indexicality refers to how language is used to make reference to something that is

not explicitly represented in the text or discourse. The asumptions is that discursive contexts not

only create, but also reveal meaning. Linguistic features (personal and demonstrative pronouns)

are said to be highly indexical. In order words, indexicality illuminates how textual implied

102
meanings might influence the sociocultural aspects of discursive situation (Anderson, 2008).

Deixis is a powerful linguistic device through which discourse operates in order to construct

social reality. Consistent with CDA deixis or the use of pronouns constitutes a power discursive

strategy involved in constructing not only social boundaries, but also knowledge and social

identity (Hart, 2010), and the projecting of social imaginaries through discourse (Velázquez,

2013).

According to Fairclough, Muldering and Wodak (2011) topoi are sets of generalized

ideas that are used as a ground for argumentative strategy. Topoi are discursive devices that are

intertextually connected to the production, circulation, and interpretation of language policy

discourse. Often, the production of policy text relies on the interdiscursive connections to

common sense views about language and the circulating discourses that sometimes stand on the

margins of the discursive chain (Johnson, 2013b). The analysis of topoi aims to capture how

general topics are used to frame language policy debates. As an argumentative device, topoi are

discursive and argumentative strategies that may serve to legitimatize the inevitability of

particular language policy proposals. For example, the impossibility to use African languages in

education or the inevitability of using ex-colonial languages in education is often justified with

generalized views that European languages are by virtue of their structure and prestige the only

languages that are fit for the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Yet, evidence points to the fact

that all languages are equally fit and capable of being used for science. In this study the analysis

of topoi may help to capture and uncover (Fairclough et al. 2011) how, for example, the

discourse and ideology of development frames and shapes language policy discourse.

103
 Fallacy is an argumentative language that frames particular types of information as

common sense (Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). For example, the dominant discourse about

possessing communicative ability in English or Portuguese as the inevitable avenue for social

success and social development downplays the fact that success is an abstract and complex

concept. The extent to which success can be measured is a problematic issue. However, as the

findings of this study demonstrate, such common sense view is often used to justify certain

policy positions.

Fairclough observed that mass media tend to purport to be neutral in shaping public

opinion and discourse. Looking at the media excerpts data can cast light on how the mass media

and the newscast articulate and shape issues of language use and language education. Finally, the

analysis of modality is important for this study because modal verbs and adverbials are

prominently used in legal discourse (Zelenka, 2013). Modals are verbs and adverbials (e.g., may,

might, shall, should, and must) that indicate the possibility or likelihood of occurrence of an

event. Modals may also indicate the speakers’ authority to advocate for certain actions (See

Palmer, 2002; Quirk, Sidney, Leech & Svartvik, 1989; Zelenka, 2013). According to Stubbs

(1996) modality refers to how language is used to encode meaning such as degrees of certainty,

commitment, vagueness, lack of commitment, personal beliefs or knowledge that people often

take for granted. In a similar vein, Martin (1997) observed that in interpersonal communication

the use of modals may indicate that the position of the speakers is a source of assessment.

Although most texts constitute a mosaic of genres and discourses (Bakthin, 1986;

Fairclough, 1993), legal discourse and texts such as constitutions, regulations, and agreements

are referred to as frozen genres due to their conservative use of language (Connor & Upton,

104
2004). Therefore, the analysis of modals may help illuminate the interpretation and

understanding of the legal materials, specifically the language policy, constitution, and other

materials in the data corpus. The analysis of legal discourse and language policy discourses may

cast light on the sociocultural and political context of production and expand the meaning

potential of language policy discourses. In short, the analysis of modals in language policy

studies might tell us something about the language policy genre and how generic resources are

used to perpetuate and instatiate particular sociocultural practices.

Intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Discourses do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they

are part of a series of interwoven texts and discourses. In a particular order of discourses or

discursive chains, texts and discourses usually make reference to other discourses in forms of

quotations, authors’ perspectives, themes and points of view. Intertextuality as conceptualized by

Kristeva (1981) is the notion that all texts are constitutes by a mosaic of other texts, which may

be assimilated, echoed or even be in contradiction to other snatches of text. One of the

challenging tasks in language policy studies is making connections betwee language policy texts

and discourse and discursive practices (Johnson, 2015). Language policies are usually linked to

past policy debates and versions of the same policy documents (vertical intertextuality) or they

may also be connected to various past and present discourses (interdiscursivity) (Johnson,

2015). Thus, intertextuality refers to how lexico-gramatical elements (words, phrases and

specific textual features) are connected, whereas interdiscursivity refers to the linking of ideas or

discourses which may be indexed in the textual features. In Intertextuality and Educational

Research, Lemke (2004) called for the need to map and construct patterns of relationship among

texts and discourses from interviews and policy documents. He noted that intertextual analysis

105
consists in identifying, classifying and interpreting relationships among various texts and

discourses on a particular education topic or theme. When texts or discourses have the same

points of view towards an audience, content or topic, they provide potential connections for

considering them as “intertexts of one another” (Lemke, 2004, p. 6). The notion of intertextuality

is central for critical discourse analysis.

Drawing from Bakhtin (1981), Kristeva (1981) noted any text is composed of many

quotations and texts are the byproduct of a mediation between society and history. In discursive

terms, discourses from top-down policies (macro-level) and discourses from the bottom up

(micro-level) may be in interrelationship that is historically, spatially, and temporally situated.

Intertextuality asserts the view that discourse analysis does not necessarily seek for meanings

shared by two texts in a simplistic way; rather, as Thibault (1991) points out, intertextual

meaning should be theorized “in terms of level of abstraction at which two or more texts are

construed belonging to the same intertextuality set” (p.135). These insights are consistent with

Foucault’s views about the nature and construction of intertextual formation. In short,

intertextual and interdiscursive analysis of policy discourse has the potential to reveal the

sometimes overlapping, opposing, contradictory, and competing ideologies that shape language

policy production, circulation, and recontextualizations. Recontextualization refers to the view

that the meaning potential of discourses may be suppressed or transformed by social agents in

the process of circulation from one context to another. As a result, circulating discourses might

acquire totally new meanings (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). In other words, language policy

texts are not transparent to be simply read from the language policy statements,rather the

106
meaning of any policy text is formed and transformed by social agents who might as a result

appropriate or resist the policy.

I used the tool of intertextuality to see the connection between the macro-level policy

discourses and micro-level policy discourses. I used intertextual analysis to connect the

interviews with the corpus of texts under consideration for this study. In this study, the goal of

the intertextual and interdiscursive analysis was to map how discourses from the macro-level

(e.g., official discourse, language policy texts) draw from and are interwoven with the circulating

discourses. Another goal was to look at the various “types of complex intertextuality of texts:

sequential intertextuality, embedded intertextuality, and mixed intertextuality (Fairclough, 1995,

p. 15).

Some scholars have elaborated on different types of intertextuality. According to

Fairclough in sequential intertextuality texts draw from one another as to create a sequence of

discourses that may coalesce in a particular order of discourse, whereas in embedded

intertextuality one genre of text is embedded with another (quotations). Mixed intertextuality

involves the mixing of texts from different genres. This normally results in the production of

hybrid texts or discourses. In other words, even one clause in a particular text may be composed

by multiple genres.

As mentioned earlier, the three dimensional analytical framework from Fairclough

adopted in this study is consistent with the view that language use and discourse are embedded in

relationships of power. From this perspective, intertextuality is conceptualized as socially

constructed resources, which serve to construct ideology and culture (Egan-Robertson, 1998).

Intertextual links provided clues on how people talk about what is meaningful to them

107
(communities) drawing from similar or different discourses and shared knowledge, beliefs, ideas

and values.

In this study, intertextuality and interdiscursivity were used to illuminate how the policy

arguments about language use and the choice of language of instruction are framed and

connected within the various layers of society (institutions and communities and individuals). To

this end, the analysis of intertextuality focused on references to various discourses, including

academic discourse, participants’ accounts, and policy debates from the media, stories, and

vignettes pertinent to the language policy under study.

Interdiscursivity is a notion akin to Bakhtinian tradition and has been studied by Foucault

(1972), Fairclough (1995) and Kristeva (1981). Interdiscursivity entails the mixing of diverse

texts and discourse genres associated with institutional, social meanings, and practices in one

text. The result is the production of more or less hybrid text, discourse, or genre (Bhatia, 2004;

Wu, 2012). According to Bhatia (2010) social actors appropriate and exploit textual, semiotic

resources, and conventions to construct and interpret disciplinary and discursive practices.

Discourses and texts often rely on beliefs, ideas, and speeches that stem from various orders of

discourse. Participants’ accounts may also draw from disciplinary knowledge or even from

entrenched common sense views to justify certain language practices, and behaviors (Bazerman,

2004). More specifically, I analyzed the intertextual and interdiscursive connections at the

textual and discursive levels to look at the participants social and language experiences, that is,

how they have impacted their lives economically and socioculturally (Family, school, identity,

and social mobility) (Kim, 2012).

108
 Discourses link social identities, people’s imaginaries of what is deemed as the correct

use of language and what language (s) suit better for schooling. According to Fairclough (1992a)

intertextual analysis is very important for understanding “discursive events as discourse practice”

(p. 269). Intertextual and interdiscursive relationships involve the connection between the macro

level discourse (policy texts) and the micro level discourse (interviews), the main topics (topoi)

and patterns of themes (Abell & Myers, 2008; Lemke, 1995). Using intertextual links of

discursive events, I analyzed the discourses by connecting them to one another so as to reach an

explanatory understanding of how these texts connect to particular types of social practices

(Fairclough, 1992b).

Using intertextual and interdiscursive analysis of policy discourse may illuminate and

provide some answers to research questions— how the colonial language ideologies and

discourses have, for example, shaped linguistic practices and people’s perceptions about African

indigenous languages. The analysis of documents and selected newspaper excerpts focuses on

intertextual links, co-patterning, generic links to capture the attitudes, beliefs within the socio-

historical, political, and ideological contexts of language policy-making in Angola. Critical

discourse analysis is recognized as a useful descriptive and interpretive framework for viewing

language as a strategic meaning potential resource.

Policy texts are seen as heteroglossic (Bakhtin, 1981), that is, constituting various

historical and cultural discourses that contend for fixing meaning, social representation, and

power. Intertextual analysis has the potential to illuminate how, for example, the discourses of

social development and nationalism reverberate and shape discursive practices related to

language use and specifically language education (Saha, 1997). Intertextuality is a productive

109
process in which texts transform and restructure prior texts and genres. According to Fairclough

(1992b) because the restructuring of texts and discourses is constrained by the relationships of

power, intertextual theory needs to be complemented with the theory of hegemony. Gramsci’s

(1971) theory of hegemony, he argued, would be the best match (See Fairclough, 1992a).

Fairclough (1993) noted that, the analysis of discourse and power in terms of hegemony

is productive because control and hegemonic struggles over orders of discourse occurs primarily

at the level of discursive practices. While Foucault’s view of power does not totally fit within

Gramscian notion of ideological hegemony, Foucault’s theory is critical because it has the power

to engage in struggle, to unmask, to subvert and undermine the dominant cultural and discursive

practices (Troyna, 1994).

In short, intertextual and interdiscursive links allowed connecting macro-level (top-down)

language policy language and the micro-level discourses that will emerge from participants’

accounts and narratives. Intertextual analysis is of paramount importance for this study because it

will cast light and reveal the various ideologies, beliefs, cultural, and discursive practices that

have influenced and shaped the production, circulation, and interpretation, or appropriation of

current language policy in Angola.

Interviews

Language policy interviewing has been found to provide nuanced perspectives about how

different agents and actors react to language education policy formulation (Johnson, 2012).

Although there are various types of interviewing methods (e.g. face to face, mediated

interviews), in this study, I use mediated interviewing (telephone interviewing). Mediated

interviewing is normally conducted using technological media such as Skype, telephone or other

110
types of media. I chose telephone interviewing methods because as we know research involves

not only time, but also resources. Lack of resources is one of the main reasons that justify my

choice of mediated interviewing.

The literature distinguishes two types of mediated interviews: synchronous and

asynchronous interviews. According to Tracy (2013), in synchronous interviewing methods the

interviews take place at the same time, whereas in asynchronous interviewing people may

conduct the interviewing at different times and places with interviewees. However, there is a

consensus among qualitative researchers that face to face interviews have advantages because the

researcher has the possibility to observe non-verbal behavior (e.g., Gillham, 2004; Tracy, 2013;

Mears, 2009). Yet, mediated interviews have been found to be useful and valuable for

conducting interviews with participants who are split apart in time (Tracy, 2013). Many scholars

have also found that mediated interviewing is helpful because it lessens anxiety for an

interviewee who is shy. Mediated interviews have been found to encourage engagement and

more sharing, than the face to face interviews, in some cases (Tracy, 2013). Of course, there are

also disadvantages in mediated interviewing. For example, Tracy (2013) noted that in mediated

interviewing participants may simultaneously engage in other activities because the interviewer

is not present. Distractions may cause the participants to lose focus on the discussed issues.

Telephone interviewing is preferred because it has been found that computer based interviewing

puts participants’ confidentiality in jeopardy (Tracy, 2013).

There are three important different structures of interviews: structured, unstructured, and

semi-structured (Kvale, 1983, 1996; Siedman, 2006). Structured interviews use some sort of

patterned script that is strictly followed, whereas unstructured interviews are open-ended and

111
more flexible. In semi-structured interviews the researcher needs more focused information, so

the interviewer asks specific questions. The interviewer starts the discussions by asking

questions and listens and uses probes to guide the interviewer in order to access the information

(Gibson, 1998). During the unstructured interviews the researcher and the participant engaged in

some sort of flexible conversation in which the researcher was willing to listen more in order to

capture participant’s lived experiences and perspectives (Gebrium & Holstein, 2003; Kvale &

Brinkman, 2008; Seidman, 2012; Rubin & Rubin, 2006).

Semi-structured interviews (See Appendix A) helped me not only focus on important

issues in order to answer the research questions, but also allowed me to follow the lead of my

participants and pursue unplanned topics. The strength of semi-structured interviews is that

observational data can be gathered along with participants perspectives (Dearnley, 2005;

DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Semi-structured interviewing has some advantages over

structured interviewing. Unlike the structured interviewing that takes an etic approach, that is, it

“describes behaviors in terms of external criteria” (Tracy, 2013, p. 21), semi-structured

interviewing follows the emic approach. In other words, the events or behaviors were not

described from the researcher’s perspective. The individual in-depth semi-structured interview

allowed me delve into social, personal experiences, and stories (Galletta, 2013; Given, 2013;

Tracy, 2013).

Procedures

Semi-structured interviews. Drawing from DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006),

Whiting (2008, p. 36) summarizes the key features of semi-structured interviews as follows: (1)

Scheduled in advance at a designated time, (2) location normally outside everyday events, (3)

112
organized around a set of predetermined questions, (4) other questions emerge from dialogue, (5)

usually last 30 minutes to several hours.

The semi-structured interviews lasted from 45 minutes to an hour and the interviews were

conducted in a private closed room. The interviews were taped recorded using a digital recorder.

Although I conducted 14 interviews, after twelve interviews many of the themes became

recurrent and little or no new information was obtained with the final two interviews. The data

suggested that all categories had been exhausted and a point of saturation was reached (Kvale,

1996; Seidman, 2006).

Following, Fairclough (1992, 1995; 2010) my aim was to use the different discourses

and texts (e.g., policy statements, newspaper excerpts, interviews) in order to map and conduct

critical discourse analysis by looking into different dimensions of analysis and illuminate how

discourses are (re)contextualized when they move into different discursive contexts.

Coding

Coding is widely used in qualitative inquiry to reduce data for the purpose of qualitative

analysis. Saldaña (2009) defined coding as a “word or phrase that symobolically assigns a

summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative attribute for apportion of language-based

or visua data” (p. 3). According to (Saldaña, 2009, 2013) values coding seek to uncover and

illuminate values, attitudes, and beliefs that justify participants’ worldviews and perspectives

about a particular phenomenon or event. While values coding (Saldaña, 2013), seeks to uncover

attitudes, evaluation coding seeks to collect information about the status, activities,

characteristics, and outcomes of a particular policy or program. Given that coding is a systematic

process that allows the researcher to group and regroup qualitative data in order to consolidate

113
meaning and explanation (Saldaña, 2009, 2013), data from interviews were immediately coded

after the transcription of the audio recordings.

Data analysis and interpretation involved organizing the collected data from interviews

and documents. As recommended in the literature on qualitative interview research (Patton,

2002; Kvale, 1996; Saldaña, 2013; Siedman, 2006), to facilitate the coding activity in this study,

I carried out the first cycle coding during the process of data collection; following the guidelines

by Saldaña (2009, 2013), I transcribed my data immediately after the interview conversation

(Kvale, 1996; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). As mentioned above, deciding which coding method to use

is often one of the challenging aspects of qualitative research for beginner researchers (De Laine,

2000; Lareau, 1989). I chose to use Saldaña’s (2013, pp. 64-66), insights because I found them

helpful as they provided a hint for making sense of the data that was generated in my interview

research.

To guide coding, during the process of transcription, I keept my theoretical framework

and research questions with me in order to make sense of what people were trying to accomplish,

the strategies they used, and how participants talked about language learning, use, and the

implementation of language policy in Angola (Saldaña, 2013). To facilitate the analysis and

make sense of patterns, I reduced my data in codes, running themes and concepts. My early

codes were tied to interviews questions regarding participants school experience in general and

language learning experience in particular. For example, participants talked about their

experience within a Portuguese only educational system and the challenges that they faced as a

result. In this context, for example, the codes that emerged in most interviews were linguistic

hierrarchization and social boundary. Although participants did not explicitly use such words,

114
the language they used suggested that these codes were the appropriate match for describing

the experiences narrated in the interviews. As I progressed in my coding, I highlighted relevant

text, recorded the category of the participant and the pages where the codes were located. In

order to look for patterns across interviews, I created an inventory were I copied parts of the

text and explored their meaning. This was a descriptive process that allowed me to label or name

thematic codes according to the data were they emerged.

During the process, multiple and overlapping codes emerged. Codes suggesting similar

thematic link were collapsed, while those which were not relevant to my research questions were

put aside. Other codes that emeged in my data were collapsed into categories such as the

politics of English, Social development, assimilation, language identity, privilege, prejudice,

language diversity, multilingualism as a norm, and hierrarchization of linguistic field and

concepts such as semilingualism, misconceptions about second language learning. For example,

the conncetion between language, privilege and social boundaries evident in my literature review

resurfaced frequently in the data. The process of data was cyclical and iterative because I found

myself going back to the data. Patterns in participants accounts reflected social exclusion based

on linguistic privilege. The most salient category was assimilationist view reflecting colonial

linguistic ideologies and beliefs. It is important to note, however, participants experinces and

discourse about language in Angola reflected some variation , contradictions and complexity in

their view of language , identity and culture. Finally, salient categories that emerged from

empirical data were explored in my analysis and helped me make sense of the impact of the

current language policies on participants experinces and its implication for promoting

multilingualism in Angola.

115
Ensuring Validity in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research contributors such as Guba and Lincoln (1994) and Denzin and

Lincoln (2005) have dramatically influenced qualitative research inquiry in the last twenty years

or so. In questioning positivist quantitative views, these scholars have challenged the concept of

objectivity in qualitative research (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2007). Validity and reliability are

but some of many contentious concepts in qualitative research. Unlike positivist or objectivist

research paradigms,qualitative researchers have developed parallel standards and criteria for

assessing validity and reliability. Guba and Lincoln (1985) suggested the notion of

trustworthiness which involves credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. In

this study after the analysis of data, I adopted the steps recommended by Creswell (2009) to

guarantee reliability and validity. According to Creswell (2009, 2014) the following activities

can dramatically enhance the validity and reliability of findings: (1) Check transcripts to make

sure that they do not contain obvious mistakes made during transcription, and (2) make sure that

there is not a drift in the definition of codes, a shift in the meaning of the codes during the

process of coding. I accomplished this by comparing the data with the codes and by writing

memos about the codes and the corresponding definitions.

I used member checking to determine the accuracy of the findings. I shared the report

with the participants so they could confirm or refute the accuracy of my interpretation (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2005; Siedman, 2006). Participants had the opportunity to read the my interpretation of

the data generated from the interview and critically reflect on their accuracy and implication. I

relied on Foucault’s (1977, 1991) insights on discourse, power, and critical discourse analysis

(Fairclough, 1992, 1989, 2010) to highlight that people live in ways which are mediated by

116
discourse which constructs work, family, gender, sexuality and so forth in particular ways that

emanate from experts attached to social systems and organizations. I triangulated my data from

texts and interviews using Critical Discourse Analysis. The advantage of using different sources

of information is that, it helps to ensure triangulation. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2005)

define triangulation as the use of tow or more sources and methods of data collection. While

acknowledging that no interpretation is repeatable, I strived to capture multiple perspectives of

participants’ lived experiences (Stake, 2005).

Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues are critical in any research that involves the study of human experiences

and life. One of the crucial ethical challenges that qualitative researchers face is how to access

the participants and convince them to participate in the study. In order to address ethical

concerns pertinent to participants, I started by calling some of the potential participants by

telephone and explaining to them the purpose of my study. I encouraged the participants to ask

questions pertinent to the study. After the participant’s consent, I emailed my interview protocol

with a detailed explanation about my actions and the procedures, and the actions of the

participants. The details of my interview protocol focused on the confidentiality of the

participants’ identity. I also provided an explanation about the actions to be carried out with the

transcripts of the interviews at the end of the study. The protocol also explained that participants

were free to withdraw from the study at any time in case they felt uncomfortable (See, Appendix

A for more detail). It is important to note that some participants were fearful and afraid of being

interviewed through computer media because disagreeing with official policies can be

117
problematic. In some cases, I had to provide additional explanations about the process and the

use of the gathered information.

Limitations

It is a truism that no study can ever capture the complexity of human activity and

experience. As a result, it is widely accepted among qualitative researchers that what one

presents, as the outcome is only one interpretation among many possible interpretations (Geertz,

1973, 1983). In this respect, this study is not an exception. One of the limitations of this study

was the number of participants. Although the sample of this study was representative of the

various social agents involved in the language policy process, longitudinal ethnographic study

with a greater sample including teachers and learners in classrooms would have provided a

much deeper understanding of how teachers and learners interpret, appropriate or resist top-

down policies. Blending ethnography and critical discourse analysis would provide the

possibility for carrying an in-depth analysis of the macro-micro levels of discourse, which is

important for illuminating the various layers of the language policy formation, appropriation, and

recontextualization (Asfha, 2013; Chimbutane, 2009, 2011, 2013; Johnson, 2011a;

Krzyzanowski, 201, Shoba, 2013; Shoba & Chimbutane, 2013).

Another limitation of this study was the use of telephone interviews. Although telephone

interviewing has many advantages, its drawback is that, it does not allow for capturing non-

verbal cues that are critical to the process of interpretation. Although my initial intention was the

pursuit of ethnography of language policy in Angola, lack of resources has prevented me to

accomplish this goal. As will apparent in chapter four the theoretical insights I used in this study

still provided enough explanatory power that helped give the events and participants’

118
experiences possible discursive form and carve out an ideological space for understanding the

issues and themes that are at the center of the debate on language education reform in Angola.

The findings of this study point to different future research directions. The findings suggest that

future studies need to approach the problem of how language status and language attitudes affect

language use in Angola through longitudinal ethnographic studies (ethnography of language

policy) and situated perspectives such as the ecology of language policy. Teacher beliefs and

language attitudes is another important area for future research. Having discussed the methods

and theoretical insights that undergirded this study and its limitations the chapter five provides

the analysis of the data and the discussion of the findings.

119
 CHAPTER FIVE

DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this chapter is to analyze the data collected from the interviews with

participants, language policy documents, media texts, and academic discourse. I started the

analysis with the micro-level analysis, specifically the analysis of linguistic and discursive

features of texts which help to articulate and describe the social effects of discourse —how the

various social agents mobilize ideology, hegemony, legitimation of power, and knowledge

through discursive and cultural practices (Fairclough, 1992). As mentioned previously, micro-

analysis is an important stage in the analysis of policy discourse because it illuminates the

construction of social identity and knowledge. The analysis of linguistic and discourse features

also sheds light on how social action and social struggles and change are framed and articulated

through the rhetorical and argumentative devices such as topoi and fallacies, and the use of

linguistic features such as modality and pronouns.

The micro-analysis of texts also looked at the participants’ perceptions, values, and

beliefs about language, specifically their interpretation and understanding of the language

education policy that introduces African indigenous languages in the education system in

Angola. At this level, the most salient discourses that emerged from the data were grouped and

analyzed by themes and categories. Although the categories that emerged were many, this

analysis focuses on the most salient discursive categories (nationalism; misconceptions about

language learning; language; culture and identity; the politics of English as a global language;

the role of media and language conflict). The micro-analysis of the linguistic and discursive

features of texts also aimed at capturing the participants’ understanding of what counts as

120
language and knowledge, and the implication that these understandings may have for social

change.

In this context, the micro-analysis of linguistic and discursive features of the language

education policy, the constitution and media discourses has provided the contextual background

for the macro-analysis of policy discourse (intertextuality and interdiscursive) that looks at how

various sources and texts (socio-historical) are interwoven to create meaning and understanding

of the language education policy. The goal of intertextuality and interdiscursive analysis was to

map the connections between the various texts and make sense how these were situated in the

broader socio-historical, political, and cultural contexts. Intertextual and interdiscursive analyses

also aimed at illuminating how the various textual links may be situated in particular orders of

discourse—the meaning potential that the intra-textual and the extra-textual links have to shape

the understanding and interpretation of the language policy discourse. Another goal of the meso-

level analysis (level between the micro-level of texts analysis and the macro-level of

sociocultural analysis) was to unpack the messages from the texts under consideration and see

how the messages in the texts connect to the process of production— how the various discourses

relate to their producers (Fairclough, 2001). In other words, this level of analysis concerns the

interpretation of texts based on how and what discourse practices are connected to the broader

socio-historical context, that is, to see how the themes and genres connect to the larger macro

sociological context and the effects that these texts produce to sustain unequal power dynamics

and inequality in education (Bauman & Briggs, 2003). The goal of such an analysis was also to

illuminate how circulating discourses enter into dialogue with participants’ views to produce and

reproduce meaning and knowledge, and perpetuate policy discourses. The chapter ends with a

121
discussion of the findings and their implication for the implementation of a democratic and

inclusive language education policy and social change.

Findings

Analysis of linguistic and discursive features of texts. In concert with Fairclough’s

three dimensional framework, the analysis of linguistic and discourse features of texts was

conducted using tools from CDA and critical social theory. However, as mentioned in previous

sections, I conducted the analysis of linguistic features using selected analytical tools adequate to

the types of data, namely pronominal analysis, modality, topoi, and fallacy. Some of these

analytical tools have been used in language policy studies (See Johnson, 2013). The section

below provides the analysis of selected texts (language policy), excerpts of legal statuses

containing language provision (the Angolan constitution of 2010), and media debates on

language policy and participants’ verbatim from interviews.

Official national language policies of Angola. The new language education policy in

Angola addresses the problem of medium of instruction and the study and teaching of African

languages in concert with the Angolan Constitution of 2010 as follows: (1) Article 6 outlines 14

languages considered as national languages, (2) Article 9 describes the functions and domains of

use for national languages (African languages), (3) Article 10 provides that African languages

(national languages) be used in the national territory in all spheres of social and public life, (4)

Article 17 relates to language education. This article contains the provision for the use of

children’s mother tongue, specifically African languages. This article constituted one of the main

objects of analysis of this study. Article 17, line 1 of the current language policy reads as

follows (I translated this excerpt from the original Portuguese):

122
 [Extract 1] Conditions must be created within the national territory to ensure that pupils

mother tongue is used as the medium of instruction in the three first classes (1st through

3rd grade), provided that human resources allow such possibility in pursuance to article 9

of this law. (Angolan language policy, line 1, 2011)

The use of modality “must” in the first clause of the article is highly indicative of the

affinity and high commitment of the policy-makers to promote African languages in education as

the use of the modal verb “must” indicates an obligation. However, the second clause of the

same article “provided that the human resources allow such possibility in pursuance to article 9

of this law” clearly reveals not only the tensions and contradiction in the policy text. Moreover,

the statement sets a limitation for the effective implementation of the language policy. In other

words, although the language policy provides for the use of children’s mother tongue in school

there is no guarantee that this will be accomplished.

Furthermore, agentless use of verbs, such as “conditions must be created”, also

demonstrates the ideological bias embedded in the policy. The omission of the agent responsible

for the actions to be carried out is often said to be one of the generic characteristics of most legal

documents. There is an emphasis on actions and an omission of the people or institutions

responsible to enforce the actions. The omission maybe strategically used to justify certain

actions, inactions, and transfer the responsibility of those who are accountable to provide the

resources to abstract entities. In addition, the use of the phrase “provided that resources permit”

in the second clause of the article 10 of the language policy constitutes what Wodak and

Fairclough (2010) refer to as a discursive strategy (typical fallacy). This strategy is used to

transfer blame from the government to abstract entities, in this case lack of resources. A critical

123
look at the Constitution may illuminate the contradictions and conflicts about the situation and

the status of African languages and the prospects for the implementation of the language policy

discussed above.

Language provision in the Angolan Constitution of 2010. Article 19 of the Angolan

Constitution of 2010, enshrines education, culture, and sports as rights. In addition, article 87,

line 1 and 2 provide that (1) “citizens and communities shall have the right to the respect,

appreciation and preservation of their cultural, linguistic heritage, and artistic identity” and that

(2) “the state shall promote and encourage the conservation and appreciation of the historic,

cultural, and artistic heritage of the Angolan people” (Constitution, 2010, p. 32). Fundamentally,

the constitution is in concert with most international laws (e.g., Universal Declaration on

Linguistic Rights) regarding a nation’s right to use and preserve national languages as a part of

cultural heritage and cultural identity. The constitution is also in harmony with the African

cultural charter discussed in chapter 3. The African cultural charter constitutes one of the most

important documents produced under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity (OAU),

whose objectives are the promotion of African languages and culture in education and social life.

Yet, a close look at article 19 shows contradictions and dilemmas with respect to the role and

status of African languages vis-à-vis the hegemonic position of the Portuguese language. Article

19 of the new constitution reads as follows: “[Extract 2] The official language of the Republic of

Angola is Portuguese . . . The state shall value and promote the study, teaching and use of other

Angolan languages, in addition to the main international languages of communication” (Angolan

Constitution, 2010).

124
 Although the official status of the Portuguese language may seem unproblematic given

the role of the Portuguese language as a Language of Wider Communication, problematic and

revealing is the second clause of article 19 of the Constitution. The article contains two important

aspects that are not only revealing, but also have important ramifications as far as the promotion

of the language policy under analysis is concerned. Article 19 of the new Constitution recognizes

how vitally education, culture, and sports are for the consolidation of the nation and indicates

them as rights. Paradoxically, the language provision in the Constitution does not recognize the

use of mother tongue as a right. In contrast, the constitution enshrines Portuguese as the only

official language in Angola. Granting education rights without language based rights is

problematic because there is no education without language. Although the Constitution upholds

the study and teaching of African languages, it categorizes them as “other” languages. In treating

the African languages as “the other languages”, the constitution clearly creates a situation

whereby Portuguese is accorded high status, while African languages are simply treated as “other

additional languages”. The language provision in the Constitution also demonstrates how the

creation of a linguistic hierarchy involves not only the ranking of languages, but also their

categorization so that some languages are associated with prestige, privilege, and economic

power. Within the context of language education and instruction the hierrarchization of

languages results in legitimation of certain ways of knowing and disciplinary knowledge.

Moreover, this imposition of the linguistic hierarchy can also be seen as integrally tied to socio-

economic boundaries, which may reinforce the political and socio-economic power of those who

have good command of the dominant language.

125
 In addition, there are stark inconsistencies between the language of the new constitution

and the new language education policy. The rhetorical language of the constitution can be

viewed as a declaration of intentions or what is desirable, but not what is de facto to be

promoted. What is apparent from both the constitution and the language policy is an instance of

conflict of interests. The language policy tries hesitantly to promote African languages, while the

constitution clearly enshrines the hegemonic position of Portuguese. From the above language

policy statements and constitution clauses it is clear that the creation of language education

policy involves struggles, conflicts of interest, and power dynamics that are complex and

dynamic. As will be apparent, ideological conflicts and contradictions at the center of the

language politics in Angola are captured by the position of the participants interviewed in this

study, to which I shall turn now.

Language policy and media discourses. From the interview transcripts the most salient

categories within the participants’ discourses were: (1) language learning, (2) language, culture,

and identity, (3)language and solidarity, (4) language and nationalism, (5) the politics of English

and globalization, (6)language attitudes and ideologies of differentiation, assimilation, and

social exclusion (7) language and conflict, (8) language, citizenship, and social development, (9)

deliberative and participatory democracy, and (10) the orthographic accord and Lusophony. The

data presented here constitute a corpus of media discourse extracts and participants’ verbatim

extracts that were selected based on their richness and the relevance of the participants’

perspectives to the present study.

Language policy and language learning. In order to elicit participants knowledge of

and opinions, and attitudes toward language education policy, I asked this male policy maker

126
what kind of policy would he personally propose for Angola if he were requested to provide an

option. He explained that:

[Extract 3] This is a very interesting question. In my humble opinion the first thing is to

make sure everybody is on board. Everybody must be involved. We are talking about

national languages here. To outline an appropriate language policy in Angola requires

efforts from everybody. These efforts will lead to decisions and contributions from other

people. When we can collect data, then we can have a policy that can help.

The the above extract reflects two important issues related to language and literacy

policies. First, the participant underscores the need to involve communities. Second, he also

acknowledges the need for research as a basis for outlining an appropriate policy. However, a

close look at the participant’s response also reveals vagueness and avoidance. Avoidance is a

discursive strategy used by language policy-makers and authorities in order to avert pertinent and

controversial policy issues. The participant avoids answering the question by resorting to

previously discussed issues. Although the question was to provide a hypothetical model of

language policy for Angola, the participant insisted that “as I said in the first question,

Portuguese is the language that is spoken in Angola and people who want to succeed should

master it”

The above excerpt also shows that although the participant has some knowledge that

could assist him to provide a plausible response to the question, he does not. It is surprising that

when I asked him, whether there were any advantages in being bilingual or multilingual. He

cheerfully answered:

127
 [Extract 4] There are of course many advantages because whenever you travel you can

communicate with friends, business partners. You can even shift from one language to

another. There are actually many advantages. For example, I went to one of the provinces

with my staff, our people wanted to talk with the local chiefs. However, the local people

could speak only their local language. The staff needed a translator and I told them that I

could speak the language. I served as a translator. Everybody in my staff was amazed and

surprised.

Then I narrowed my question and asked whether a bilingual or multilingual education policy

would be a good alternative for Angola. Surprisingly, he responded that:

Uh Uh it is not easy. It is a good idea, but you know let us recall. We have lack of

resources and books in these subjects. If we have a bilingual education policy we will

need two books; one in Portuguese and another in African languages. You see it takes

time. It is better to start with what we have now and later they will have more scientific

knowledge of what has being taught through Portuguese. 1

Across the three excerpts we see contradictory and conflicting ideas that reflect the

ideological tensions about the use of African language and the maintenance of Portuguese as the

sole medium of instruction in schools. On the one hand, the policy-maker recognized the

pragmatic benefits of bilingualism and demonstrated self-awareness by highlighting his own

bilingual experience with his staff while visiting one of the provinces in Angola. On the other

1. Extract numbers are organized based on the topic and the question being answered by the

different participants

128
hand, although he recognizes that bilingual education may be a good idea, he is skeptical about

the feasibility of its implementation given the lack of resources.

From the above, it can be gleaned that the discourse of resources from the official

language policy is recontextualized in the context of bilingual education in order to legitimize the

assimilationist language policy. Although the policy-maker did not explicitly state his preference

for Portuguese, his appropriation of the official language policy discourse illuminates how top

down language policy discourses enter into dialogue with circulating discourses to frame issues

pertaining to language education and language use. In the follow up question in extract 4, the

policy- maker explicitly noted that “it is better to start with what we have now and later they will

have more scientific knowledge of what is being taught through Portuguese” The above

observations may suggest that the legislator believes that African scholars do not have the

knowledge to teach these languages. As will be apparent, this argument is very recurrent in

political discourse and academic discourse in Africa and even in Angola.

I asked a linguist about what kind of policy he would propose if he was involved in language

policy efforts. He responded that:

[Extract 5] This is a very provocative question. We could have a language referendum to

ask all the stakeholders to voice their opinions. However, I would suggest that the use of

African languages as medium of instruction start from the primary school level up to the

secondary school level. This should be a policy that can promote the teaching of African

languages, not teaching three hours a week. Employ people based on their knowledge and

background of African languages. If we use African languages in employment, similar to

Portuguese and English that should help.

129
 The the above extract can be understood from two perspectives. On the one hand, the

participant highlights the need for deliberative and participatory democracy; on the other hand,

he contextualizes and problematizes the current language policy. Perhaps the participant is using

his disciplinary training to analyze the language policy. Although it is not clear whether the

participant understood the implications of extending mother tongue education up to secondary

school, what is obvious is that he understood that without appropriate status and acquisition

planning, the current policy will remain a wishful thinking and that Portuguese will continue to

be de facto and the sole language of instruction in Angola. Interestingly, when I asked the

participant why he considered my question as provocative, he answered that “this question has

political ramifications that I would not talk about here” The participant’s perception of my

question suggests that language is a not only about communication, but it also is a political issue,

that is, it involves the interlocking and dynamic relationships of power and knowledge.

Participants’ perspectives on language learning. The extracts presented below aim at

illuminating these tensions and contradictions. I asked a teacher to tell me his views about the

current language education policy. The teacher explained:

[Extract 6] I think that the policy is good, but three years is not enough time. I had this

experience at the school of languages; 45 minutes have never been enough for a language

class. African languages should be taught from the primary school up to the university

level because people in the streets speak Portuguese all the time. To learn a national

language as a foreign language, it is not going to help anyway.

Then I asked him, whether it is possible to learn two or three languages simultaneously, He

responded:

130
 [Extract 7] Yeah, for me people should be free to select the languages they want. A child

can learn two or three languages. African languages should not be taught as subjects;

rather they should be used to teach subject contents. On the other side, there are few

people who teach these languages. We need to train people. You know when I went to

South Africa, I had a classmate who could speak all languages in my class. South

Africans call themselves a bold nation because they have multilingualism.

The extract highlights that the participant has an understanding of language learning

based on personal transnational experience. Transnational experience is reflected in the

participant’s capacity to translate a transnational language learning experience to inform a local

discourse on language learning. The participant also appropriates academic discourse,

specifically bilingual education research. As such, both excerpts demonstrate how language

policy discourse and processes are to a varying degree shaped by global and local discourses.

These policy discourses are also influenced by nationalist ideology. The fact that the participant

acknowledges that ‘the South African call themselves the bold nation because they have

multilingualism’ illuminates how language is implicated in the politics and ideology of nation-

building. These texts also reveal that the language debate in Angola involves different views and

opinions. Some participants advocate for greater use of African languages through late exit

transitional bilingual programs and while others tend to promote colonial language ideologies

and assimilation policies. In order to gauge participants’ attitudes toward the language of

instruction and language use I asked parents their views about the use of African languages as

medium of instruction in schools. This parent explained that:

131
 [Extract 8] Three years will not help because children will not have the chance to speak

the languages at home. I think that African languages should be used throughout primary

school in order to give the children good background.

When I asked what prevents children from speaking African languages at home, he responded as

follows:

[Extract 9] The problem is that we live in urban areas surrounded by people who think

that Portuguese is the language of the civilized and educated. If you speak a language

other than Portuguese people will regard you as backward. So, to avoid difficulties

children speak only Portuguese. However, this has caused various troubles in the family.

My mother lives with me and does not speak Portuguese at all. My children can’t speak

my mother tongue because they have assimilated into Portuguese. It is the breaking of the

family so to speak.

Then I asked a school administrator the same question. He answered that:

[Extract 10] I think that it is good that children will start learning in their mother tongue.

I have been to Israel and there I found that children learn through mother tongue. They

have a bilingual education system there. In our case, the country is vast and we have great

cultural differences between regions. What people have in the South does not exist in the

North. So, I think we should have regional bilingual schools. The program must be

standardized for the whole country.

The texts above reflect the two points of view on the language policy debate. The parents

argue that African languages should be taught beyond primary school. The administrator

suggests that the complexity of the Angolan cultural landscape and underscores the need for

132
regional bilingual education arrangements. One remarkable aspect of these policy discourses is

the fact that they recognize the relevance of the sociocultural context in language learning. To

capture this aspect, the school administrator highlights the cultural differences between regions

in Angola. Again, here the administrator resorts to transnational experience by specifically

illustrating the bilingual education program in Israel. It is striking that consciously or

unconsciously the administrator also upholds the nationalist ideology of national standards,

which points to the necessity of one standardized language and curriculum. Here the tension

between the local and the global language discourses is clearly manifest in the contradictions in

the participant’s perspectives on the model of language education policy.

The parent’s views and perspective reflect two important aspects that influence language

use and the choice of language of instruction in Angola. Most remarkable in the parent’s

comments are the discourses of civility and the ideology of Portuguese as the language of

civilized. A look at extract 9 reveals that because African languages have become associated

with low prestige, people prefer to distance themselves from these languages and adopt the

dominant language. From the excerpt, it is also clear that parents are forced to make choices in

order to protect their children. The above texts may well suggest the interruption of

intergenerational transmission of language, which may be an indication of assimilation and

language shift. Although it is difficult to claim the continuation of colonial language policies in

post-colonial Angola, the participants’ perceptions and views reveal that people have entrenched

colonial language attitudes toward African indigenous languages and its speakers. In short, these

policy discourses also highlight that the authority and privilege of a language are sustained by

133
ideologies, beliefs, and values that enter in dialogical relationship with the circulating discourses

to perpetuate language education policy discourses.

To capture the different views, opinions, and perspectives of the language of instruction

debate, below are presented two excerpts from the media.

[Extract 11] a ideia não passa por ministrar os conteúdos em linguas nacionais, mas

inserir disciplinas com diferentes línguas do primeiro ciclo até a universidade. [The main

idea is not to use African languages to teach subject contents, but to introduce them as

subjects from the first cycle up to university].(my translation). (Silva, 2011).

The above excerpt was extracted from a speech delivered by an Angolan linguist during a

public event. The statement reinforces the stereotype and misconception that African languages

cannot be used for teaching school subjects, say, mathematics or biology. These misconceptions

reinforce the clichés and negative attitudes towards African languages and reflects a language as

a problem or language as deficit orientation.

Another illuminating observation about attitudes towards African languages and their use

in education comes from Angelo Feijo (2010, p. 1), an Angolan sociologist and politician.

During a public address Angelo Feijo made the following comments:

[Extract 12] First of all, we have many doubts about the official teaching of regional

languages (African languages). One of the doubts is: what will be the technical and

scientific significance of learning regional languages? At the outset, we believe that in

primary school, which is the most important stage, knowledge of Portuguese grammar

must be consolidated as a basis for learning any other language and other scientific

content matters. For us the vocabulary of regional languages seems too poor, and does

134
 not match the communicative needs required for science and technology. When

addressing the language question we should not lose sight of the fact that throughout the

history of humanity, it has been proven that languages develop [….] (My translation).

Although Feijo makes a very interesting proposal and asks thought provoking questions,

particularly whether three years is sufficient time for the learners to acquire acceptable command

of African languages, his questioning of the relevance of teaching African languages in schools

asserts a modernist fallacy that social development and scientific knowledge can only be

acquired through Portuguese qua Indo-European languages. Surprisingly enough, Feijo’s

questioning is contradicting and conflicting to his own thesis. According to Foucault,

contradictions are nothing but a reflection of illusion of unity that hides itself. He goes on to say

that contradictions in discourse reveal only those ideas that can be seen, while reinforcing what it

conceals. From the above, it can be gleaned that Feijo sustains his argument using the modernist

discourse that connects language to social and technological development, while concealing his

ideological bias grounded in the colonial linguistic ideologies.

Moreover, Feijo’s use of deictic pronouns is revealing. He constantly uses the pronouns

‘we’ and ‘us.’ The author’s use of ‘we’ is ambivalent. On the one hand, the author seems to be

claiming solidarity to the nation, but on the other hand, he seems to claim allegiance with

“we”— those of us who have good command of Portuguese. The use of deictic pronoun ‘we’ and

‘us’ serves to conceal and obfuscate the voice and actions of who is performing policy actions.

Of course, by using ‘we’ and ‘us,’ one might have the impression that Feijo is acting as an

authorized voice speaking on behalf of a particular group, when in reality Feijo is expressing

his beliefs and language ideologies, and views of language entrenched in colonial topos. As the

135
discussion of colonial language policies in the foregoing demonstrate, Feijo’s use of ‘we’ serves

to construct an imagined community of speakers with whom he purports to share a particular

homogenous nationalist consciousness and linguistic repertoire. In doing so, he forecloses the

possibility for envisioning heteroglossic linguistic repertoire and multilingualism.

Contrary to these attitudes and ideologies, there is plenty of evidence that even the less

‘developed’ languages can serve for acquiring scientific and technological knowledge

(Hornberger, 2006). This view is based on the misconceptions about the nature of languages.

From a linguistics point of view, it is abundantly clear that all languages are dynamic and

creative; that is, they have the capacity to develop and adapt to new socio-cultural and

communication contexts. The idea that African languages lack science vocabulary highlights the

author’s bias, which is grounded in the colonial linguistic ideology and colonial discourses.

Languages such as English have gone through many stages of development and have reached the

current level of development through linguistic processes such as borrowing mainly from other

major world languages.

Moreover, Feijo engages in what Wodak and Fairclough (2010) refer to, as the typical

fallacy of sweeping generalization. While making a blatant generalization about the language

situation in Angola, Feijo’s opposes the language education policy that is being piloted in

schools by ignoring the government’s findings and statistics about the causes of many school

failures across the country.

In order to elicit language learning perspectives, I asked two participants, a teacher and a

policy-maker, whether it is possible to learn two or three languages simultaneously. The teacher

responded:

136
 [Extract13] Huh huh, it is possible. Children have the ability to learn languages. But

when this happens the children will be no good at any of the languages. Children should

learn only one or two languages. I mean that is scientific.

I asked this same question to one of the policy-makers and she responded that:

[extract 14] Right, children have the skills and ability to acquire languages. But it does

not mean they can learn simultaneously. In my view, they must learn one language at a

time. Otherwise, children can be forced and this will cause miscommunication.

When I insisted what she meant by miscommunication, she responded:

“A child will be confused”.

In the above excerpts the participants make problematic assumptions about the effects of

bilingualism and third language learning. These participants’ views about language learning are

the result of outdated research and the monolingual bias. Monolingualist ideologies assume that

the use of one language is the norm and that additional languages can cause confusion in

children’s brain and cognitive development. The policy-maker’s idea that by learning three

languages a child would have no fluency in any of the languages derives from bilingual

education research discourse referred as semilingualism (Clegg & Afitska, 2011; Grosjean, 2008,

2011).

The choice of language of instruction has several consequences. Language provides

access to resources that are crucial to individual and social development. Despite the examples

cited above and participants’ misconceptions about language learning, they clearly demonstrate

how circulating discourses have the potential to influence language educators. It is also clear

why most African countries continue to grapple with the implementation of mother tongue

137
bilingual education, despite the evidence that bilingual experience leads to higher proficiency

and stronger cognitive development (Adesope, Lavin, Thopmson & Ungerleid, 2010).

The Politics of English as a Global Language. It is a truism that the English language

has gained a prominent role globally, both as the language of international communication and

the language of science and technology. However, the challenges posed by the spread of English

in non-English speaking African countries have not been dealt with systematically. Although the

present study was not specifically concerned with the role of English, the data that emerged from

the current study warrants the consideration of the role of English in language education policy

in Angola. In an attempt to elicit participants’ views and language learning experiences, I asked a

student what policy he would propose if he had been involved in language policy efforts. The

participant responded:

[Extract 15] You know I like English very much, but I don’t have the opportunity to

learn it well because we live in a country that does not speak English. It is when I visited

Japan I realized that English is very important for communication today.

Then I asked, what policy would you propose for Angola? The participant explained that:

The use of our languages at least until secondary school is the ideal. But who will teach

these languages. We don’t know where the teachers are. There is more publicity. At the

faculty of arts they are teaching African languages, but it is not enough.

I asked the same question to a teacher. The response was:

[Extract 16] Okay. I know it is hard. The program would be top-down. But first there is a

need to train teachers in our languages. They must train bilingual teachers in each of the

provinces. But there is a lack of political will. And English is also important.

138
When, I asked why English is important? The participant continued:

When you travel overseas you need English.

Nowadays to get a good job they require English.

The hegemonic role and status of English and its impact on language education policies

in English speaking Africa cannot be denied. Yet it came to me as a surprise that the discourse of

English as global language has gained such a prominence in a Portuguese speaking country such

as Angola. A look across the above excerpts demonstrates a duality of global and local

discourses that reflects the ideological tensions between the promotion of African languages and

the role of English in Angola. These tensions are manifest at the discursive level. At one level,

the participants underscore the relevance of the communicative ability of English as a language

of international communication and globalization. Whereas at another level, the participants use

of expressions such as “our languages” highlights the nationalist ideology. The use of “our”

indexes the participants’ alliance and solidarity to an imagined ethno-linguistic community. In

this sense, the participant is constructing his identity based on the sense of solidarity and

belonging to a particular homogenous group. Moreover, the participants’ ambivalent position

about the role of African languages and English can be seen as a counterhegemonic discourse

against the Portuguese only dominant ideology.

Furthermore, the discourses also reveal how the politics of English as a global language,

is inextricably connected to the global neoliberal discourse of English as the language of

development. The discourse of English as the language of international communication and

business obfuscates the link between English for business and Business for English. From the

above it is clear that it is relevant to appreciate the pragmatic role of English in Angola.

139
However, it is also abundantly clear that the growing status and role of English in Angola is a

process that poses many challenges to the promotion of mother tongue bilingual education.

Therefore, English needs to be factored in ideological debate on language education policy in

Angola.

Language, culture, and identity. The analysis of the extracts presented here is a

synthesis of the participants’ views on language, culture, and identity. I asked the participants

their views about how the command of Portuguese has helped them. One of the parents

responded:

[Extract 17] If you don’t speak Portuguese you are treated as uneducated. But

Portuguese is not our language. We have our culture and language. We are forced to

speak Portuguese. For me Portuguese should not hamper people’s lives because many

Angolans do not speak Portuguese well.

When I asked the same question to a policy-maker she responded:

[Extract 18] Well, as I have already told you Portuguese is the only language spoken in

Angola before and after independence. So, people must do their best to speak and write it

well. Portuguese is important in my job and English with our business partners. Of

course, Portuguese has positively influenced my life in terms of social mobility.

Then I asked about those who cannot speak Portuguese at all or cannot speak it well. She replied:

You know the country is dynamic. Those who have not learned to assimilate, they have

to. Otherwise, they don’t stand a chance in terms of social mobility.

I asked the same question to a student. He replied that:

140
 We all know that Portuguese plays a great role in Angola. Language is not only a way of

speaking, but it is also a way of being. I did not know there were other languages. I

always thought that Portuguese was the superior language. Frankly speaking, I was born

in Angola, but speak only Portuguese because of where I live. Because of that, I feel like

Portuguese and act like Portuguese.2

Across the extracts, we see three differing points of view regarding the discourse on

language, culture, and identity. On the one hand, one discourse reflects some sort of linguistic

relativism; on the other, there is a complex and contradictory intersection between the discourse

of development and the assimilationist ideology. The third point of view captures the complexity

of the relationship between language and identity. The extract 18 (p. 168), reflects an instance of

linguistic relativism normally referred to as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The participant used

essentialist views of language to challenge the hegemony of Portuguese. In fact, the participant

reiterates that in a country where there is only anecdotal evidence that all Angolans speak

Portuguese, Portuguese should not be a guiding factor in making a living. The above discourse

on language and identity illustrates how social boundaries are dynamic and unstable. In other

words, the student’s interpretation of the relationship between language and identity illuminates

how the complex and dynamic negotiation of speakers’ identity may lead to allegiances or

ambivalent views with respect to the status of the dominant or marginalized languages.

In addition, the excerpts also highlight an instance of erasure of individuals who speak

African language. For example, the participant in extract16 (p. 175), observed that “I did not

2. Extract numbers are organized based on the topic and the question being answered by the

different participants

141
know there were other languages. I always thought that Portuguese is the superior language.”

This statement encapsulates a linguistic process called erasure. Erasure is the process in which

persons who speak certain languages are rendered invisible. From the statement, we see that

regardless of their background, the view that Portuguese is the most important language in

Angola has become common sense.

The Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord. As far as the role of the orthographic accord,

different views emerged in the data. Some participants believe that if Angola ratifies the so

called Luso-Brazilian agreement (Zúquete, 2008), African languages will be in trouble, while

others showed hope that the agreement would boost the promotion and revitalization of African

languages. One of the parents noted that:

[Extract 19] The Orthographic accord is welcome, but there are contradictions. Although

we speak Portuguese, our reality is different. I don’t know if these factors were taken into

account.

When I asked a linguist about his views on the agreement, he responded:

[Extract 20] If the orthographic accord is approved, African languages are in trouble.

While another linguist noted that:

[Extract 21] My own point of view is that languages are dynamic. They develop. I don’t

see the point of having the orthographic accord. You know there are many Englishes.

Why should there be a unique Portuguese. It is just a political question not a linguistic

one. This accord will not have an impact on Angola Portuguese.

Then I asked what Angolan Portuguese meant. He continued:

142
 You know people here don’t speak the standard Portuguese. I know that the variety of the

Portuguese spoken in Angola is also being spoken in Portugal by the Portuguese

themselves.

The above extracts reveal three perspectives that are to some extent in contradiction with

one another. The linguist provides a complex understanding of the role of the orthographic

accord. Remarkable in the student’s view is that he underscores the socio-cultural aspect of

language. In fact, he underscores that language use does not arise in a vacuum. Rather, language

evolves in socio-cultural, economic, and political contexts. Extract 20 provides a post-structural

argument, particularly by using an academic discourse to legitimate his views. Interestingly, the

perspectives in the extract 21 enact an understanding of language that not only recognizes the

multi-accentuated character of discourse, but also aligns with the more recent discourses on

language and identity that decenter the authority of standard language.

In respect to the role of media, most participants agreed that the media play an important

role in promoting the functional domains of language use. The extracts below demonstrate how

media discourses attempt to reinforce the ideology of Portuguese (Stroud, 1999) and the

nationalist discourse. These particular extracts were taken from the only official local newspaper,

Jornal de Angola, figuring in the language policy debate between 2009 and 2012. The figuring

discourses from both extracts are part of the media debate on the status of African languages in

Angola.

[Extract 22] Despite the fact that the majority of Angolans do not have a good command

of Portuguese, Portuguese is the only language spoken from Cabinda to Cunene (Zau,

2009).

143
 [Extract 23] The Portuguese language is also our language.

The speakers of a particular language are the ones who own the language.

Across these discourses, two important ideologies emerge. First, the author deploys a

nationalist ideology in order to legitimate the dominance of Portuguese. Second, he articulates an

argument to sustain the appropriation of Portuguese by the Angolan people. Interestingly, the

newspaper article’s author recruits disciplinary knowledge to claim authority as an expert. The

use of expert discourses reminds us that the in any society, the production of discourse obeys

rules of selection, organization, and distribution that enact disciplinary knowledge to constitute a

system of control in the production of discourse.

At a glance, it seems that these discourses are in complementarity. A close look,

however, reveals that epistemologically and ontologically these discourses are in contradiction

and conflict with each other. This conflict is reflected in the fact that in extract 22 (p. 141), the

author deploys a nationalist ideology projecting homogenous and monolingual linguistic and

discursive field through the use of the expression “the only language used from Cabinda to

Cunene”. By contrast, in extract 23 (p. 141), the author recruits a post-structuralist point of view

that recognizes the creativity of language through the process of appropriation. Contradictions

and conflicts in discourse are the result not only of struggles of interests, but also of opposing

economic and political views. Thus, by discursively reclaiming the authority of an expert

position, the author attempts to legitimate his knowledge about the sociolinguistic situation in

Angola as the truth knowledge. In concert with the policy discourse in extract 14 (p. 135), the

above excerpts illuminate how power is articulated in the media discourse through institutional

biases and ideologies in order to perpetuate language policy discourses.

144
 Language and conflict. The relationship between language and conflict has been the one

of the most controversial issues in language policy debates in Africa. In order to capture

participants’ views on this issue, I asked teachers and policy makers whether languages can be

divisive. One of the linguists responded that:

A policy-maker responded that:

[Extract 24] Coming back to the issue of school, language wouldn’t divide the people.

But each region has its language. It should be used in school. But again the problem is

about people who are trained to produce materials. When I insisted that why then people

think that if used in schools African languages would divide the country. She continued

that: well we have to think deeper. We know that our country has many tribes.

With respect to the connection between language and conflict, a teacher educator explained:

[Extract 25] When you are unable to implement something you find an excuse. There are

countries with over 400 languages, yet they use their languages in school and they don’t

divide the people. In my point of view the dividing language is Portuguese. When your

pronunciation is not good you are called names. These people can’t find a sounding

reason. How can you anticipate that African languages will divide if you have not

implemented the policy yet?3

The above extracts, capture the intricacies involved in language issues especially in

multilingual contexts. In extract 24 the official language policy discourse is contextualized. The

policy maker says that “But again the problem is about people who are trained to produce

3. Extract numbers are organized based on the topic and the question being answered by the

different participants

145
materials”. In this statement the policy maker paraphrases article 17 of the Angolan language

policy in order lack of resources as the main impediment to the implementation of an inclusive

language policy in Angola. By contrast, in extract 25 the linguists underscores the hegemonic

position of Portuguese. The statement “In my point of view the dividing language is Portuguese”

suggests that language is politically and ideologically a site of contestation and struggle among

various social groups. In the statement “When your pronunciation is not good you are called

names” the teacher educator suggests that linguistic features such as accent are often used to

demarcate social boundaries and reinforce stereotypes agains those who ‘deviate’ from

strandards linguistic norms.

Intertextual and interdiscursive analysis. As mentioned throughout this paper, the

main goal of the intertextual and interdiscursive analysis was to analyze the connections between

the various layers of policy texts and discourses. From the extracts, it can be seen that one of the

policy-makers faithfully reproduces the official discourse from both the legal statuses (language

policy) and the official discourse produced by a government official in one of the most read

newspapers in the country.

Although in extracts 3 and 4 (pp. 125-126), the policy-maker’s perspective about the goal

of the current language policy represents a reproduction of the official and media discourse, there

is no set pattern of intertextuality between the texts. What is remarkable, however, is that in

extract 5 (p. 156), the policy-maker demonstrates how participants can take control over

discourse content by providing their own ways of interpreting the questions asked by the

interviewer. This is an important aspect of policy interviewing because it demonstrates that

participants are not just respondents, but also agents and knowledge producers in their own right.

146
Although the policy-maker’s behavior can be characterized as a discursive strategy used to avoid

responding to the question about the amount of time necessary for the study of African

languages, he provided useful insights regarding the relevance of home and family in language

and literacy education.

Interestingly, one of the linguists highlighted an issue that reflects the power of language

in the process of subjectification and construction of identity. What is interesting in the accounts

of both the teacher and the linguist, though is the fact that their discourses involve a mixing of

discourse genre. The verbatim contain both conversational and academic discourse. More

importantly, the texts reveal a process of recontextualization in which an academic genre has

been appropriated by the policy genre. Both genres are changed and transformed, resulting in

mixed and hybrid texts and discourses.

It should be noted that the data reveal how disciplinary knowledge plays a discursive role

in the construction of what counts as language, what languages are deemed important for

education.What is interesting in both accounts, however, is the fact that they reveal the

articulation of language ideology and the power of discourse to construct particular imaginaries

of social identity. Interestingly enough, the data highlight instances in which languages have

been used not only as a technology of domination, but also a mechanism of management and

regulation of conduct. Categorization and construction of social groups are maintained through

hierrarchization of language. It is through such linguistic categorization that sociocultural and

economic inequalities have been enacted in postcolonial Angola. Discourse does not only help

construct identity. The creation of any language policy depends on these enacted and circulating

discourses.

147
 As can be gleaned, intertextual links were also manifest across the various texts under

consideration in this study. The intertextual links between the language provision of the

Constitution text and the media discourses were very apparent. For example, the Constitution

considers Portuguese as the only official language. A look at the Constitution (Article 19) “the

official language of Angola is Portuguese” reveals that the language provision text in the

Constitution is thematically connected to the perceptions of the media discourse about the

privilege and the hegemony of Portuguese in Angola. The official languages are usually the

languages that are vested with high status, privilege and are used in the high societal domains

(administration, education, business, etc.). The extract quoted above is in concert with Zau’s

(2009), perceptions of Portuguese in Angola. In an article published in Angola’s official

newspaper, Jornal de Angola, Zau (2009) acknowledges that Portuguese is not mastered by the

majority of Angolans, yet he notes that “Portuguese is the only language spoken from Cabinda to

Cunene” Again, although the two extracts differ structurally (language form) and at the semantic

level, these texts are connected in the sense that they both attempt to frame a monolithic

sociolinguistic reality and legitimate the hegemony of Portuguese in a multilingual ecology in

which diverse languages are used in the different domains of social life.

Another salient intertextual link between the texts under consideration is manifest

between the text in the constitution cited above and policy-makers’ perceptions about language

use in Angola. One of the policy-makers felt that, those who want to succeed in Angola ought to

learn to assimilate the Portuguese language and culture. Again, it can be inferred that the

legislator’s discourse about language use is to some extent intertextually associated with the

official discourse and the language provision of the constitution. Although at the pragmatic level

148
the outcome may be unpredictable, theoretically speaking both the text of the constitution and

the legislator’s views envision the assimilation of Portuguese by the speakers of African

indigenous languages.

Salient from the data is also the intertextual connection between the participants’ views

and the language education discourse about the feasibility of mother tongue instruction. As

discussed earlier, within the provision of the official language education policy, mother tongue

instruction is contingent upon the availability of resources (Article 17). Surprisingly enough,

some of the participants, specifically linguists and policy-makers felt that the implementation of

mother tongue education depends on the availability of resources. One of the linguists, for

example, noted that “we will need much resources to teach African languages” Again, while the

rhetorical language in Article 17 (Extract 1) (p. 121) is not explicitly the same, both texts to

some extent, suggest that resources constitute the stumbling block for mother tongue instruction

in Angola. In short, the official discourse on mother tongue education intertextually links to the

participants’ views about the allocation of resources for mother tongue education in Angola.

In conclusion, from the above intertextual and interdiscursive analysis, it can be gleaned

how circulating discourses can potentially influence language policy recreation and its

underlying cultural and discursive practices. In order to lend authority and legitimacy to their

views of language and identity, participants’ accounts rely not only on official language policy

discourses, but also on disciplinary knowledge and expertise. In embedding authoritative sources

and common sense understandings of language in their discourses, participants produce new

knowledge on how language can serve both participatory and exclusionary purposes. Having

provided the textual analysis of linguistic features, media discourse, and the intertextual and

149
interdiscursive links, the next section discusses the findings and their implementation for

devising an inclusive and democratic language education policy in Angola.

Discussion of Findings

Language learning and cognitive development. The responses of the interviews with

parents, teachers, school administrators, and institutional participants (policy-makers)

demonstrate that these groups are not homogenous. Regarding language learning, the teachers’

opinions, views and beliefs differed significantly. Some participants felt that there is a critical

period for learning a second language. Some teachers noted that children have the ability to learn

two or three languages, while others opposed this view. In other words, some teachers believe

that learning two or three languages simultaneously will cause confusion in a child’s brain.

Another view from teachers is that in learning two or three languages simultaneously, children

will have no fluency in either of the languages (semilingualism). It can be seen that these views

represent misconceptions and myths about second and third language learning (Marinova-Todd,

Marshall & Snow, 2000; Snow & Hoefnagel-Höhle, 1978).

A number of studies have refuted the misconception that earlier age is the only optimal

period for second language learning (Collier, 1988; Dekeyser, 2013; Johnson & NewPort, 1989).

For example, in the effects of age on the acquisition of second language learning for school,

Collier (1988) noted that age is one of the major factors in the acquisition of second language.

The relevance of the first language influence on cognitive development, bilingualism, and third

language learning has been well documented (Cenoz, 2009; Cenoz, Hufeisen & Jessner, 2001;

De Angelis, 2007; Tokuhama-Spinoza, 2008).

150
 Attitudes and beliefs about mother tongue bilingual education. Despite the

contradicting views about language learning, the findings demonstrate that teachers, parents, and

policy-makers alike, are well aware of the advantages of speaking two or three languages.

Although the participants are aware of the benefits of bilingualism and multilingualism, it is

surprising that the language ideological debate fluctuates between those who sustain

monolingual ideologies and those who sustain the ideology of multilingualism. Considering the

recent developments in language education policy and the view of teachers as policy actors

(Johnson, 2013; Mencken & Garcia, 2010), the above findings have important implications in the

implementation of the language education policy discussed in this study. These findings

demonstrate that language education policies are often created in an environment with various

perspectives that shape and influence their acceptance, negotiation, appropriation and even

implementation.

Although the policy-makers participated in the study not as official representatives of

their institutions, from the findings, it can be gleaned that their perspectives on language

education policy are to some extent influenced by the authoritative institutional discourse. The

idea that the policy is a milestone is shared by the policy-makers. This view obfuscates the

assimilationist character and the consequences of this early exit transitional program in the

efforts of revitalization and maintenance of African languages. Overall, the participants agreed

that three years are not enough for learning and mastering a language. Kamwangamalu (2010) is

adamant that language policies aimed at promoting African languages need a pragmatic and

market oriented perspective that can increase the market value of these languages. The

participants also felt that mother tongue-based bilingual education was important, but they

151
highlighted the exclusion of communities, and educators, the lack of materials and teachers as

the main handicaps for successful implementation of the current policy.

Another argument that resurfaced in the debate about the language of instruction is the

view that African languages are to be used as subjects only. The idea that African languages lack

science vocabulary is reminiscent of the modernist discourse, which downplays the creative

nature of language. Brock Utne (2012), a great advocate for the use of African languages in

education, brings evidence from Asian education systems. In her study entitled Language Policy

and Science: Could Some African Countries Learn from Some Asian Countries carried out in Sri

Lanka, Malaysia, and Tanzania, Brock-Utne (2012) found that Malaysia and Sri Lanka have

shifted from teaching mathematics, science, and technology in English in favor of teaching in

local indigenous languages, namely Malay, Tamil and Sinhala, respectively. In Europe as

Professor Brock-Utne (2012) noted, countries such as Finland and Norway, “which do not teach

their children through the medium of an international language” (p. 489) are not isolated and

have not lost pace with technological and scientific development as nationalist and modernist

dominant discourse would make us believe.

These fallacious views coupled with the entrenched negative attitudes, prejudice, and

stereotypes (Scollon & Scollon, 2001) towards African languages may have negative

repercussions for convincing parents and other stakeholders about the importance of teaching

African languages in schools. In respect to the impact of negative attitudes in language policy

Lopes (1998), has noted that:

The educational authorities must succeed in explaining to parents, teachers and children

the implications of teaching and learning through a certain medium of instruction (mother

152
 tongue, language of wider communication, or both), and succeed in convincing them of

the pedagogical and cultural advantages associated with promotion of mother-tongue

education, and promotion of individual and societal bilingualism. (p.454)

Moreover, if learners and parents do not understand the “the psychological and

pedagogical arguments advanced for hypothetical use” (Lopes, 1998, p. 454) of African

languages as a medium of instruction, their preference will continue to be Portuguese because of

its value as the language that affords them social mobility. Language attitudes towards African

languages and language choice of medium of instruction in Sub-Saharan Africa have been well

documented (Adegbija, 1994; Ansre, 1978; Bamgbose, 2005; Brock-Utne, 2001; Diarra, 2003;

Fanfwa, 1990; Kamwangamalu, 1997, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2012; Prah, 2000; Mukhuba, 2003;

Tibategeza, 2010).

The role of media and disciplinary knowledge. Another important finding is that the

lack of information has reduced the trust between the language policy oriented institutions and

the various stakeholders. This is reflected in the fact that parents believe that the policy is usually

a mere rhetoric and that at the practical level, nothing will happen. This is happening, in part,

because parents and other stakeholder are not aware that the policy is at its experimental stage

and that the selected African languages are being taught in selected schools before the

implementation of the policy nationwide. This has a bearing on the successful implementation of

the policy nationwide.

The findings also demonstrate how participants recruit the discourses that circulate in the

media for critical reflection about the language situation in Angola. What is also revealing is the

impact of the interplay between entrenched language ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes on

153
language policy discourses, the construction of individual and collective identities. Interestingly

enough, although people continue to see African languages as the marker of individual and

collective identity, the finding also illuminates the complexity and dynamics of identity

construction in multilingual Angola.

Inconsistencies in language policy. Remarkable in the findings are the inconsistencies

and tensions between the language education policy and the language provision in the

constitution. These findings are consistent with previous language education policy studies in

post-colonial settings such as India and sub-Saharan Africa. Harmaan (1991) noted that

inconsistencies in language planning are a result not only of hegemonic struggles, but also of

conflicts of interests. Kaplan and Baldauf (2004) have investigated language policy in many

African countries, namely in Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, and South Africa found that,

rather than being driven by linguistic problems, official language policy is driven by political and

ideological agendas rather than by linguistic and educational concerns.

The discourse of ‘lack of resources’ for the promotion of African languages is not a new

story within the context of language education and literacy policies in post-colonial nations and

in Africa. In Language and Literacy Issues in Africa, Bamgbose (2007a) noted that the language

status question is inextricably connected to the discourse of resource. Although there may be

many ideological reasons for advocating for African languages, education has been recognized

as one of the most promising avenues for improving the status of marginalized languages. In

addition, a number of scholars support the idea that the attribution of official status and the use of

a language as medium of instruction is one of the most powerful forms of intervention. Giving

the status of official language also shows the commitment and intentions of the policy-makers to

154
promote that language (Bamgbose, 2007a, 2011; Orman, 2008; Tsui & Tollefson, 2004).

Bamgbose (2007b) noted that the low status of African languages, owes not only to its low use in

education, but also to poor funding of language instruction and linguistic exclusion.

The language status debate is at the center of language use and language education policy

in Angola. The findings indicate that the allocation of status works both as a mechanism that

empowers and (dis) empowers certain social groups and their languages. Although cognizant

about the view that the implementation of institutional policy involves negotiations and

compromise, the findings indicate that the overbearing status of Portuguese has led to what

Anchimbe (2005) calls functional seclusion, a situation whereby Portuguese is at advantage

because it is used in all domains of social life, including the official domain, while African

languages are confined to marginal roles.

Language and family solidarity. The findings are mixed, regarding the view that the use

and promotion of African languages through education system may cause conflicts. Most

participants disagree that language can divide the country. However, one participant, a policy-

maker, suggested that the presence of many tribes may cause conflicts. What is interesting is that

language policy research indicates that such an argument is often deployed to perpetuate the

nationalist ideology of one people and one language. There are many qualitative sociolinguistic

studies and quantitative studies that have looked at the relationship between ethnicity and

conflict in Africa. These studies challenged the argument that there is a correlation between

allegiance to ethno-linguistic group and conflicts. Rather, conflicts are caused by the interplay of

factors, some of which are unequal distribution and access to resources and power (Albaugh,

2014; Mansour, 1993; Hyden, 2006). The findings also suggest that language serves to negotiate

155
identity and authority. Thus, conflicts cannot be seen as essentially emanating from a linguistic

point of view alone; rather there are economic issues that exacerbate internal conflicts

(Tollefson, 2002).

The findings also demonstrate that parents are the guides and keepers of their children’s

interests, and therefore have a great influence on family language policy— more often than not,

children tend to value the language practices that have support in the home environment

(Spolsky, 2009). Parents strategically ask their children to assimilate into the dominant language

not only for pragmatic reasons— the pragmatic advantages of the communicative ability in

Portuguese (social mobility and employment) and because Portuguese is the language of wider

communication, but also to avoid social exclusion and marginalization. Although the attitudes

and beliefs expressed by the participants may not necessarily correlate with their actual linguistic

behavior, parental beliefs and attitudes about language use and how children acquire languages

can have a great influence on children’s linguistic behavior (De Houwer, 1999). Remarkable in

the findings are also the negative effects of the hegemony of Portuguese on family cohesion and

solidarity. Parents highlighted how the imposition of Portuguese only ideology has fragmented

and weakened family ties and solidarity. Striking is the fact that some children cannot

communicate with their grandparents because in most cases, the latter do not speak Portuguese.

The politics of English language. It should not come as a surprise that the politics of

English as a global language and the international language of communication has had a

significant impact on language education and literacy policies in Sub-Saharan Africa (Bamgbose,

2011, Mazrui, 2004; Ricento, 2012). However, surprising is the way in which the politics of

English has influenced language education policy discourses in a non-English speaking country.

156
The findings reveal that the politics of English has implications in the development of language

education and literacy policy in Angola. Drawing upon their personal experiences the

participants clearly showed awareness of the role of English in the context of globalization. In

other words, participants view Portuguese, African languages and English in terms of

complementarity — the participants recognize and sustain multilingualism and a linguistic

diversity environment in which all languages must have the same consideration and respect.

The discourse of English as a global language in the debate of language education policy

in Angola suggests that language policies are often influenced both by local and global

discourses. The findings demonstrate how participants’ views of English are influenced not only

by personal experiences, but also by the discourse of English as the language that affords people

economic opportunities, albeit in an unequal way. With few exceptions (e.g., Kamwangamalu,

2010), most studies that chart the role and influence of English in language education policies in

sub-Saharan Africa have dealt with the English and French speaking nations (Alidou, 2003;

Brock-Utne, 2002, 2010b; Mazrui, 2004; Roy-Campbell,2001) and scant attention has been

given to language policies in Portuguese speaking Africa.

The dynamics and complex role of English in Angola constitutes an important finding

because it contributes to our understanding of the global and local discursive practices and the

effects of the discourse of English as a global language, language of international

communication, and business on language education policy and language use in non-English

speaking countries. The discourse that emerged reveal that particular languages (Portuguese,

African indigenous languages, and English) are associated with distinct ideological discourses

such as the discourses of English as a global language, Portuguese as a language of national

157
unity and African indigenous languages as the languages of national and cultural identity. In

short, from the findings it can be gleaned that language form and discourses have ideological,

political, and cultural meanings that serve the purposes of nation building (Madumulla,

Bertoncini & Blomaert, 1999).

The way forward. The main goal of this chapter was to discuss the findings of the

foregoing study. One of the objectives of the chapter was to gauge how language attitudes,

ideologies, beliefs and values intersect the process of language policy production, circulation,

and the complex way in which language policy discourses are recontextualized and appropriated

by the various social actors and agents that intervene in the language policy arena (Choulairaki &

Fairclough, 1999; McGroarty, 2013). The major sources of data used for the analysis were

transcripts from interviews with the participants, excerpts from language policy documents,

media discourse and academic discourse. The chapter provided insights that will significantly

contribute to the interpretation and implementation of bilingual education policy proposed in

chapter five of the foregoing. Despite the limited scope of this study, the insights of this study

provide a new critical understanding of the polictics of language in Angola. Therefore, chapter

five proposes a model of language policy, theoretical, and pedagogical insights that would help

devise an inclusive language education policy capable of promoting linguistic diversity and

multilingualism in Angola. Having discussed the findings, taking advantage of the insights from

the findings of this study and the theoretical insights from research on bilingual education

development and language education policy literature, chapter five proposes a bilingual

education policy framework for Angola and provides the concluding remarks for this study.

158
 CHAPTER SIX

TOWARDS A BILINGUAL LANGUAGE AND

LITERACY EDUCATION POLICY IN ANGOLA

The main concern of this chapter is to outline a proposal for a multilingual education

policy that is sound and conducive to the promotion of both the Portuguese language and African

languages as a medium of instruction in the Angolan school system. The policy that I propose

here is mainly inspired by the global view of multilingualism as a resource that is necessary for

social development, democratic nation-building, and the promotion of inclusive education in

Africa. Moreover, the vast research on bilingual education globally and in Africa has confirmed

the cognitive, psychological and pedagogical advantages of mother tongue-based bilingual

education (e.g., Adesope et al, 2010; Baker,2000, 2003a, 2003b; Bialystok, 1991, 2013;

Chimbutane, 2013; Collier, 1992; Corson, 1995; Cummins,1979; 2009, Heugh, 2013). This

proposal is also grounded in the insights from the empirical findings of the present study.

As mentioned earlier, the language education policy that is in an experimental phase in

Angola is grounded in the mother tongue transitional bilingual models (TBE) or what some

consider weak bilingual models (Baker, 2011) that aim at transitioning students from the mother

tongue medium of instruction to the language of wider communication (LWC) after three years.

This model has been criticized on the grounds that it does not promote biliteracy and bilingual

competence in both languages. Rather, its goal is to assimilate the students into the dominant

language, a fact that has many negative learning consequences for children with a mother tongue

that is different from Portuguese (Cummins, 1995; Francis, 2005b, Skutnabb-Kangas, 1995;

Spener, 1988).

159
 By contrast, additive bilingual programs or strong bilingual programs with appropriate

pedagogical orientations are said to promote biliteracy, bilingualism, psychological and

emotional benefits (Baker, 2008, 2011; Cummins, 1999a, 2000) and learning advantages such as

enhanced cognitive control, increased attention on tasks, executive control, working memory

development, and onset age advantages (Bialystok, 2001; 2011; Bialystok & Viswanathan,

2009; Emmorey, Luk, Pyers & Bialystok, 2008; Luk, De Sa & Bialystok, 2011; Morales, Calvo

& Bialystok, 2013; Poulin-Dubois, Blaye & Bialystok, 2011; Smithson, Paradis & Nicoladis,

2014). The drawbacks and benefits of multilingualism and bilingualism have been extensively

discussed in this paper and I will not further elaborate on them here. The following section

outlines the proposed scenarios, framework, and the underlying assumptions for promoting

multilingualism and bilingual education activities in Angola.

The discussion about a suitable bilingual education program in Africa has been one of the

most contested issues among African sociolinguistics and educationists alike. The proposed

frameworks constitute an attempt to open spaces for the promotion of democratic values, respect

for universal human rights, and to consolidate pluralism, and linguistic diversity in Angola. This

proposal is in harmony with recent developments in Africa, namely the Policy Guide for

Introduction of African Languages and Cultures in the Education System, signed by the African

Ministers of Education in Ouagadougou in 2010 (UNESCO, 2011) and the efforts of the

Angolan government to valorize and maintain Angolan national languages in all areas of social

life and education. I maintain that the education policy models proposed herein will help not only

promote Angolan national languages and recover the intergenerational transmission processes

160
that are critical for the maintenance of any language (Fishman, 2001), but reduce school drop

outs, failures and harmonious coexistence of different languages and ethno-linguistic groups.

Moreover, although lack of political will has been the most greatest impediment in

promoting mother-based bilingual education in Africa (Bamgbose, 1991, 2011; Kamwangamalu,

1997, 2010), the situation in Angola is favorable in that, the government is cognizant of the need

to promote linguistic diversity and mother tongue based education.

The use of African indigenous languages as a medium of instruction is viewed as the

result of the global movement and national education reform in Africa. As a medium of

instruction, African languages will be used from the Kindergarten until secondary school at least

for six years in the initial phase. Contrary to the three years (early exit program) proposed in

language education policy discussed in the foregoing, the long term goal of the models suggested

here is to promote additive bilingualism. As proposed here, the additive approach aims at

promoting both competence and literacy in Portuguese, African languages, and an international

language (English) with optional languages such as French or Spanish from Kindergarten up to

secondary school. This approach provides increased cognitive advantages and firm academic and

cognitive development in the first language after eight years, even in schools with fewer

resources (Heugh, 2006). Moreover, using a language familiar to students (Brock-Utne, 2007)

beyond primary school as a medium of instruction provides a strong foundation for knowledge

transfer (Cummins, 19979, 2000, 2008). Research evidence suggests that in most cases, children

need at least 12 years to become competent and conversant in their first language (L1) (Ouane &

Glanz, 2010).

161
Suggested Potential Bilingual Education Models

According to Ouane and Glanz (2010), in the African context language-in-education

policy models have been extensively assessed in order to determine their effectiveness for

second language (L2) learning, foreign language learning and other school subjects. The results

of such assessment suggest at least three prominent models (See, Collier & Thomas, 2004;

Heugh, 2006, 2011). These models are summarized as follows: (1) Mother tongue education

throughout primary education and secondary school: in this framework or model students are

taught using L1 (e.g., Kimbundu) as a medium of instruction and learn additional languages

(Portuguese) from specialized teachers of Portuguese at least until grade 6. From grade 7 onward

learners are taught using Portuguese as medium of instruction and African language continues as

a subject throughout the curriculum. This model is a late exit transitional model which is

practiced in South Africa (Ouane & Glanz, 2010) and is consistent with research evidence that

the first predictor of long-term school success is cognitively complex on-grade-level academic

instruction through students’ first language for as long as possible (at least through Grade 5 or 6)

and cognitively complex on-grade-level academic instruction though second language for part of

the school day (Thomas & Collier, 1997); (2) very late-exit transitional model: In this model

learners are taught through mother tongue (L1) (e.g., Kikongo) for eight years and learn L2

(Portuguese) as a subject from a specialized teacher and transition to L2 (Portuguese) medium of

instruction in the ninth year. The rationale for late transition is that early transition, that is, three

years schooling in the L1 is abrupt and does not allow for the learners to attain the necessary

threshold of L1 that can ease the transfer of complex knowledge from L1 to L2 (Cummins,

2000; Sevinç & Ӧnkol, 2009). Very late-exit bilingual education programs are implemented in

162
some regions in Ethiopia (Heugh, 2009b); (3) additive bilingual education: Additive bilingual

education programs aim at providing the learners with the literacy in both L1 and L2. In other

words, the goal of this program is to promote bilingualism and biliteracy in Portuguese and

African languages. Thus, in this model the learners are taught through MT medium of instruction

up to grade 8. During this period Portuguese is taught as a subject by a specialized teacher. In

grade 9 some subjects are taught in L1 and others in L2. The outcome of this program is

biliterate and bilingual speakers who are proficient in both Portuguese and at least one African

language. It is worthy to note that the percentages attributed to each language will considerably

vary based on the established national curriculum, which will need adjustments in order to

accommodate these models. However, it pivotal to underscore the need for longer periods of MT

instruction. Research suggests that the longer the MT instruction the better the scores in the

assessment of performance in the second language (Glanz, 2013; Ouane & Glanz, 2011). Best

practices of MT bilingual education programs indicate that the percentage of instruction in MT

ranges from 80 % to 90 % depending, again, on the national curricular arrangements and whether

the goal is to educate biliterate and bilingual children or to assimilate them into the dominant

language. However, bilingual and dual language research has shown that the bilingual programs

with 90:10 and 50:50 curricular strategies are most likely to produce fully bilingual and biliterate

students (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Lindholm-Leary & Molina, 2000).

Curricular decisions are very contentious and complex. Therefore, the decision about the about

of time allotted to each medium of instruction and subject should be carefully considered in

order to design a program that is effective and conducive to learning. This consideration is

163
extremely important in order to maintain balance among literacy, numeracy, oral proficiency and

science instruction.

Language Education Policy Legal Framework

In accordance with article 19 of the Angolan Constitution of 2010, Portuguese is the

official language of Angola (1) and the state values and promotes the study, teaching, and use of

other languages of Angola, including the languages of international communication. The

education law (Lei N 13/01 of December 2001) article 9 line 2 states that: the state promotes and

guarantees the human resources, scientific, technical, material conditions, and financial resources

conducive to the expansion, use, and teaching of national languages (My Translation). Article

17, line1 of the current language policy guarantees the use of a child’s mother tongue as a

language of instruction. The above policy’s legal support is in harmony with the promotion of a

bilingual education policy (2+1) formula proposed herein: (1) In bilingual education program to

be adopted the Portuguese language is a mandatory subject throughout the school curriculum; in

harmony with the ongoing higher education reform and the distribution of public higher

education institutions, it is imperative to create a national bilingual education board under the

supervision of the Ministry of Education (MOE) with corresponding regional boards. Regional

bilingual education boards (RBEB) would function in collaboration with regional higher

education institutions for the purposes of regional planning, advising, budgeting, and conducting

research in order to secure an informed bilingual education implementation regionally and

nationwide; (2) regional arrangements should be viewed in the context of the national language

policy and legislation. Within this framework, it is suggested that a 2+1 formula be adopted. The

2+1 formula entails a language program in which mainly three languages are to be used, namely

164
Portuguese + African language + International language (English). The 2+1 formula is

circumscribed in the efforts to facilitate the implementation of bilingual education throughout the

country taking into account the bottom up approach to language policy. The bottom up approach

is important because it will allow the involvement of the communities of speakers in all activities

for consolidating the implementation of MT based bilingual education. The main goal of regional

arrangements is to facilitate and mitigate the problems that would emerge in the decisions for

making language choice. The geographical distribution of languages in Angola provides an

advantage for educating bilingual learners regionally and nationally. Given the fact that the

selection of the medium of instruction has always been a contentious issue, in multilingual

polities, regional arrangements provide an opportunity to mitigate suspicions. The three language

formula has been successfully implemented in countries such India (Meganathan, 2011) and

explored in Ghana (Bodomo, 1996); (3) based on geo-linguistics insights (e.g., Chaudenson,

2004), we know that favorable geographical distribution of languages can be strategically

exploited in order to bring about a language policy that responds to the needs of the people while

maintaining national sovereignty and national unity within the spirit of diversity in unity. In this

context, following the rationale for the regional universities initiated by the Angolan

government, the Angolan national bilingual education board (ANBEB) would have six regional

representations divided into each geo-linguistic region. In this context, for example, each

specified region would have an African language as the medium of instruction for primary

education until grade 6, Portuguese as medium of instruction from grade 7, a regional African

language and English taught as a compulsory subject from grade 7 onward. Portuguese would

still be the official language, but would coexist with the African languages as regional co-official

165
languages (Fardon & Furniss, 1994; Laitin, 1992). Local governments would have the oversight

role for coordinating the activities of each RBEB; (4) in order to allow the development of

contextualized sociolinguistic evidence, in phase one, model 1presented in the section of

potential bilingual models (p. 162) should serve as an experiment for a minimum period of at

least 10 years in order to permit the accumulation of pedagogical insights and knowledge about

African languages and allow for appropriate teacher training. In fact, research evidence shows

that the duration of the program is an important factor for successful implementation of bilingual

and dual language programs. Lindholm-Leary (2005) draws from the bulk of research in

bilingual education (Cummins, 1981; Thomas & Collier, 1997) and notes that 6 years is the

amount of time required for the learners to develop language proficiency and reach grade level

achievement.

Intervening Actors

The theme of actors intervening in the language policy arena is recurrent in language

policy research (Cooper, 1989; McGroarty, 2013; Mencken & Garcia, 2010; Kaplan, 2011;

Kaplan & Baldauf, 2005; Zhao, 2011). The question of who is involved in language planning and

policy efforts is a key aspect in understanding the process that underlies the whole language

planning enterprise. Kaplan and Baldauf (2005) have noted that for a successful implementation

of any language education policy, some key elements need to be factored. Some of these

elements are: access policy, curriculum policy, materials and resourcing policy, personnel policy,

community policy, and teacher policy (Zhao, 2011). Therefore, successful implementation of

language education policy will dramatically depend on the involvement and collaboration of the

166
various actors and agents intervening in the policy arena. Thus, next few sections concern the

role that the various actors would play in language education policy interventions.

Teacher Training

Learning a new language is difficult and teaching is correspondingly a complex activity.

The notions of teacher training are often used interchangeably in language education literature to

refer to teachers’ preparation (Ur,1996). For practical and philosophical reasons, in this paper I

use the term teacher education to denote the activities inherent to the professional preparation of

teachers. In addressing teacher education, two important issues that have practical and policy

implications are worth sketching here. The nature of the teacher profession has been a subject of

many heated debates within the field of education and language education specifically. Two

important views emerge in the literature. One is the traditional understanding of the teacher as a

technician and authoritative source of knowledge who dominates the classroom discursive field

on the one hand, and the teacher as a facilitator on the other hand.

Teacher as technician. This perspective is grounded in the functionalist views of

language and literacy that conceptualize language in terms of skills and techniques (Street, 1984,

2001). However, within the field of language education such an approach has been under

attacked for downplaying the sociocultural aspects of language learning. Moreover, approach

that view teacher as the only authority who provides legitimate knowledge in the classroom

perpetuates power dynamics and prevents dialogue and critical reflection. Unfortunately, such

views of the role of teacher continue prevalent in many language education programs. Although

honing language skills remains an important aspect of the contemporary language classroom,

167
relavant to this discussion are the sociocultural and critical approaches to language, to which I

shall turn now.

Sociocultural approach. This perspective is grounded in the sociocultural and cognitive

understandings of language learning and literacy development (Goldenberg, Rueda & August,

2008). This paradigm encourages a child’s personal discovery and the use of a child’s

background knowledge, and experience as a package that awakens the child’s cognitive

development (Vygotsky, 1978). Evidence suggests that bilingual learners face L2 learning

challenges because they increasingly create and envision the world through their mother tongue

or L1. In this respect, a sociocultural perspective of teacher education for bilingual education is

consistent with the view that teachers who neglect the use of students L1 hinder the cognitive

development of the students and consequently affect the chances of their success in learning a L2

(Garcia, 2005). Preparation for bilingual teachers is a key component for the successful

implementation of the proposed policy.

It is an understatement to say that teachers play an important role in promoting bilingual

learning and biliteracy Literature of teacher effectiveness and teacher preparation suggests that

teacher quality is more important than any methodology and model of instruction (Westwood,

2008) in promoting multilingual literacies (Martin-Jones & Jones, 2000). To put this in an

historical perspective, bilingual and multilingual literacies must be viewed and interpreted in the

specific historical context of the development of language education and the philosophy of

education. In this sense, bilingual education preparation programs necessitate a philosophical

shift not only on the views of language, but also teaching and learning. Moreover, as Darling-

Hammond (2010), notes “the demands on teachers are increasing. Teachers must be able to keep

168
order, provide useful information to students, and be increasingly effective in enabling a diverse

group of students to learn ever more complex material.”(p. 20). In other words, bilingual teachers

must possess the abilities, dispositions and skills to link best practices in the field of second

language education and bilingual pedagogy that promotes learning through content based

instruction (Cummins, 1999b). The two understandings of the role of teacher in the learning

process sketched above have great implications for formulating bilingual education teacher

education program.

Drawing from the discussions above, I suggest that language and teacher education

preparation institutions such as The Higher Institute of Sciences of Education (ISCED) and the

Normal Institute for Education (INE) Garcia Neto review the traditional philosophical views

about language learning and teaching. In other words, I suggest that pre-service teachers need a

preparation that would enable them to work in a bilingual mode and be knowledgeable about the

theoretical and epistemological insights that underpin the bilingual language learning and

multilingual literacies (Diaz, Whitacre, Esquierdo & Ruiz-escalante, 2013; Palmer & Martínez,

2013; Whitacre, Diaz & Esquierdo, 2013). Effective pre-service and in-service teacher education

requires support and capacity building of national and provincial department personnel. Given

the relevance of curriculum and pedagogical practices in bilingual education, the development of

pre-service and in-service education must hinge on nurturing and building appropriate

instructional plans to meet the needs of bilingual students and teachers (Pluddemann, 1999).

Critical language awareness. Teacher education programs need to prepare pre-service

and in-service teachers about the fact that language learning and literacy practices are always

embedded in dynamic power relationships that are not always apparent. Critical language

169
awareness approach undescores the view that texts or language are not monolithic, rather to

varying degree they cam be contradictory, that is, influences by both the centripetal and

centrigugal forces that make texts heteroglossic (Fairclough, 1995). According to Fairclough

much teacher training is oriented toward the inculcation and legitimation of particular discursive

practices. Such discourses may serve to validate certain cultural values and meanings that have

the potential of shaping social relations and identities. The notion of critical language awareness

is connected to the view that texts are historical and politically situated. Therefore, teachers need

to assist the learners develop the critical reflection skills and language critique capacities

required for conducting a reflexive analysis of education processes in general and language

learning in particular. Moreover, research suggests that learning a language is a matter of

learning social languages with discourses (Gee, 2004). The notion of social languages is

important because it expands from the traditional interpretation of language. Social languages

encapsulate the view that language is social and that depending on the context, language acquires

different interpretations. This understanding of language is useful for promoting biliteracy and

multilingual literacies. In this respect, Martin-Jones and Jones (2000) note that, promoting

multiliteracies entails acknowledging and accepting the diversity of readings and interpretations

that evolve in different discursive practices.

Furthermore, collaborative aspects that strengthen the ability of teachers to become a

community of learners are also critical for fostering a powerful bilingual education teacher

preparation. Another important and challenging task to be accomplished within the teacher

education reform and the mother tongue-based bilingual education (MTBE) is the alignment of

teacher training with the selected languages of schooling (Plüddemann, Nomlomo & Jabe, 2010).

170
The need to provide bilingual and multilingual education to pre-service teachers has been

emphasized in language education literature (Nieto, 1995; 2000, 2010).

Although the Angolan new language policy promotes linguistic diversity and mandates

the teaching of learners’ mother tongue in the first three years of schooling, it does not mention

the need for teacher education reform. Professional development for bilingual education teachers

should promote policies and practices that can empower the learners and educational leaders as

well as the communities (Opfer, Pedder & Lavicza, 2011). Lessons from international bilingual

research in Europe, Latin America, and Africa have shown that teacher positive attitudes, beliefs

and values about the learners’ mother tongue help support learners, learning, and literacy

development (de Meija, 2005; De Palma, 2010; Garcia, 2009; Hornberger, 2005, 2006; Tellez &

Varghese, 2013).

Accommodating and aligning learners’ mother tongue within the teacher education

programs is important because evidence suggests that the ways in which teachers view the role

of the mother tongue language is likely to affect their perceptions and pedagogical practices in

classrooms. Moreover, the insights from cutting edge research on second language learning and

bilingual education (e.g., Cummins, 2000, p. 3) confirms the usefulness of L1 as follows: (1) The

level of development of children’s mother tongue is a strong predictor of their second language

development. Children who come to school with a solid foundation in their mother tongue

develop stronger literacy in the school language, (2) promoting mother tongue education does

not only develop the mother tongue, but also develops children’s abilities in the language of

wider communication, and (3) contrary to the misconceptions about bilingualism, more

171
instructional time spent using the students’ mother tongue does not cause any problems to

students’ academic development in the language of wider communication.

Finally, as the findings of the foregoing demonstrate, successful mother tongue bilingual

education will require a change of attitudes and perceptions of teachers in respect to the

usefulness of mother tongue in L2 learning. Obviously, for effective teacher education reform to

take place, resources and institutional support are necessary. This brings us to the second

important argument of this section, which is the problem of cost effectiveness of MTBE.

In a publication entitled Cost Implications of the Provision of Mother Tongue and Strong

Bilingual Models of Education in Africa, Heugh (2011), unravels the clichés and misconceptions

that mother tongue education is very costly. Heugh’s (2011) analysis of the costs of teacher

training shows that depending on the adopted language education model, the use of LWC has

been the most costly language program. The early-exit or subtractive program has high costs and

low value; whereas the late-exit model has medium costs and good value; strong or additive

bilingual models have medium costs and high value; and the program with MT as medium of

instruction (MoI) has low costs and high values as well. Research from Africa (e.g., Alexander,

2008; Bamgbose, 2000) has also shown that literacy in African languages has many advantages

that make MTBE a beneficial long term investment (See Coulmas, 2005, 2013; Heugh,

1996,1999; Grin, 2005, for detail about economic considerations in language planning and

language policy). In addition, bilingual education in countries such as Guatemala has been found

to have long-term benefits in terms of economic return because it has reduced dropouts and

repetitions, and the students developed proficiency in Spanish and native language (Patrinos &

Velez, 2009).

172
 Furthermore, as research has suggested, decentralization of teacher education through

alternative teacher education programs constitutes an important step toward the democratization

of education. Decentralization through alternative teacher education programs would

significantly help overcome the shortage of teachers for bilingual education. Alternative teacher

education programs have become one the most prominent features of teacher education in many

developed nations and in the U.S in particular (Casey, Dunlap, Brister, Davidson & Starrett,

2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Taking advantages of the insights from alternative teacher

education programs, I suggest that Angola could take advantage of the great work that is being

done at the Faculdade de Letras (Faculty of Arts of Agostinho Neto University and the Higher

Institute of Sciences of Education (ISCED) Luanda in order to design an alternative bilingual

teacher program. It is important to note that such a step would entail a fundamental change not

only in the structures that govern and manage schools, but in the existing practices (Vescio, Ross

& Adams, 2008). Delegating the power to school leaders and administrators is a process of

school management that could enhance school principals’ accountability and instructional

leadership (Ovando & Casey, 2010).

In addition, the Faculty of Arts, specifically the Department of African Languages and

Literature has been preparing many young people who are conversant in both African languages

and Portuguese. Given the existing shortage of well-prepared bilingual teachers, alternative

teacher education seems like a viable pragmatic option. The program would attract graduates

who have a passion for teaching, and who, more often than not, lack employment opportunities

after graduation. These students would be prepared through the Alternative bilingual teacher

173
program in order to gain familiarity with the second language theory, the epistemological, and

the pedagogical insights underpinning bilingual and multilingual education.

In addition, one important aspect that needs to be incorporated within the professional

development framework is a bilingual education teacher certification program. To the best of my

knowledge, in the framework of the ongoing education reform, the Ministry of Education has an

established project that aims at implementing teacher certification that has not been translated

into practice. It is widely recognized within the field of language education and bilingual

education in particular that teachers in language education programs should have appropriate

credentials and certificates.

Research evidence indicates that teachers with certificates and credentials have more

positive attitudes towards teaching learners in dual language or bilingual programs (Lindholm-

Leary, 2005). Montecel and Cortez (2002) found that teachers with credentials and teaching

certificate worked continuously to refresh and update their knowledge base regarding the best

pedagogical practices and appropriate instructional strategies in bilingual education and second

language theory. Zumwalt (1996) noted that alternative certification eases and minimizes the

training process because its focus is on On-Job training. Darling-Hammond, Berry and Thoreson

(2001) found strong and consistent evidence that higher achieving students in mathematics and

science are taught by teachers who hold certification. Moreover, from the vantage point of

quality management, certification and accreditation is one avenue that can be used to enhance

quality of teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond, Chung & Frelow, 2002).

Literature on professional development and teacher certification is large and it is not my

intention to provide an exhaustive review of it here. Suffice it to say that teacher training,

174
professional development, including certification are critical aspects of successful bilingual

education and education in general. Certification and endorsement will ensure that candidates

who earn bilingual education credentials are educated and familiar with the research in the field

of bilingual education and second language teaching. Teacher certification should be a pre-

requisite for pre-service bilingual teachers and in-service teachers who will function in schools

with the long-term goal of promoting developmental bilingual education characteristic of

effective 5-6 years late-exit and additive bilingual programs (Thomas & Collier, 1997, 2002).

Furthermore, the alternative teacher training program could also attract other candidates

with bachelor’s degree in any field of education who are competent in Portuguese and conversant

in any of the selected African languages. Given the opportunity for employability, such a

program would be promising for supplying the need of teachers for the implementation of

mother tongue bilingual instruction. Further, the need to develop teacher and learning material is

a perennial issue that needs attention. The potential to develop local teaching materials will

dramatically depend on the level of commitment and the allocation of resources. The materials

can be produced in partnership with the communities if there are enough incentives. However, as

the findings of this study demonstrate, there is a need to create space for proactive discussion.

This entails, including teachers, students, parents, linguists and all stakeholders with the

knowledge and experience that could possibly help in the creation not only of teaching materials,

but also strategies how to connect schools with the communities.

Cross-Regional Efforts

Cross-border regional arrangements offer another alternative way of sharing knowledge.

Cross-border committees such those within the Academy of African Languages (ACLAN) would

175
be a very important site for collaboration and exchange of knowledge. Given that Angola has

cross-border languages, that is, languages that are shared between ethno-linguistic groups in two

countries, the country would gain a lot in terms of material production, pedagogical insights from

countries with some tradition in teaching African languages in schools. In fact, a number of

African scholars have suggested that cross-border collaboration is an important ingredient for

regional integration and development of African languages (Ndhlovu, 2013). In short, cross-

border initiatives would enhance cross-cultural understanding in the region and consequently be

an asset in developing cross-border languages, notably Kikongo, a cross-border language spoken

in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Congo Brazzaville; Oshiwambo a cross-

language spoken in Angola and Namibia and Luvale a cross-border language spoken in Angola

and Zambia, to name but these few (Lusakalalu, 2007).

Educational Leadership

School leadership is a crucial factor in promoting learners L1 within the contexts of

bilingual education programs. Effective school leaders do not only promote effective instruction

and inclusive classrooms, but also promote respect for linguistic diversity and a culture of

democracy (Dewey, 1916), in their schools. Vision sustains and shapes the course of actions that

principals, teachers, and staff take to bring about the desired outcomes. Given that schools are

not isolated from society, school leaders should be aware and cognizant of the centrifugal and

centripetal forces (Bakhtin, 1981) that shape literacy instruction, teachers’ language attitudes,

and educational culture in general. Therefore, effective instructional leaders are educators who

are aware of the sociocultural, political, and economic force that shape and influence instruction

and school culture.

176
 Effective leaders advocate for school programs that promote equity and they act as

liaison between the communities and educational institutions responsible for educational reform.

In this sense, leaders who work with teachers in programs that aim to promote linguistic and

cultural diversity ensure that training and professional development align with the goals and

strategies of the programs (August, Beck, Calderón, Francis, Lesaux & Shanahan, 2008;

Lindholm-Leary, 2005). Corson’s (2000) concept of emancipatory leader better fits the

characteristics of educational leaders who work toward inclusive educational enviroments and

social justice. According to Corson, because education policy-making involves competing

interests, emancipatory leaders ensure that all stakeholders are represented in the best interests of

all children. Thus, school leaders who work for the implementation of bilingual and dual

language programs should have heightened awareness of the social reality of the communities

where the schools are situated. So, it is crucial that the community school relationship is robust

and conducive to effective collaboration not only among the teachers (Creese, 2005), but also

between the school and the communities. In short, effective school leaders ensure that the

planning process in place, promotes the goals of producing students who are bilingual, biliterate,

and have developed intercultural communication skills and critical reasoning (Hardin, 2010;

Palmer & Martinez, 2013; Saville-Troike, 1991).

In conclusion, effective leaders promote the vision and mission of building school

environment, culture, and teacher development that promote the sociocultural and cognitive

development of the students and strive for building school capacity conducive to equitable

education opportunities for all students (King, 2002; Taylor, Yates, Meyer & Kinsella, 2011).

School leaders’ support and knowledge about dual language programs and bilingual education in

177
general is said to be crucial for the maintenance and promotion of bilingual programs that

produce fully bilingual and biliterate students (Alanís & Rodríguez, 2008). Although effective

leadership is crucial for developing efficacious bilingual education programs, research and

institutional support plays a significant role as well.

The Need for Research

It is undeniable that research plays a critical role for effective and efficacious educational

innovation and reform to take place (Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992). . Research is important

because for more than a decade the debate around bilingual education has been influenced

mainly by popular opinions and myths, rather than by expert and research (Hakuta, 1986a,

1986b; Hakuta & Garcia, 1989) as demonstrated in this study data. Decades of research have

attempted to demystify these beliefs and opinions about bilingual education, the optimal and

onset age for learning a second language (Baker (2001; Bialystok & Feng, 2009, 2011;

Bialystok, Luk, Peets & Yang, 2010; Bialystok et., al. 2011; Butler, 2013; de Bot & der Hoeven,

2011; Singleton, 1989; Wei, 2013).

The bulk of research cited in the foregoing has been conducted in different contexts and

under varying socio-cultural, political, and economic conditions. It has been mentioned earlier

that, from a sociocultural perspective language learning is situated and mediated process. In this

sense, research is crucial for producing localized and situated understanding of the factors that

influence the linguistic structure and form, the consequence of contact between African

languages and Portuguese, and how these may influence language learning at the level of

phonology, morpho-syntax and semantics. Sociolinguistic interdisciplinary research is better

equipped in delivering language planning and policy scenarios that can illuminate the nature and

178
character of ecology (Deumert, 2009). As discussed in section above, the insights from research

would help take informed policy decisions and the accumulation of theoretical and pedagogical

insights pertinent second language acquisition (SLA) and bilingual education.

Furthermore, research capability remains one of the problems for implementing effective

education policies in most developing countries (Lin Lin, 2003). Therefore, in this paper I

suggest that the investment that is being made for higher education and general education reform

is commendable, but not enough. The government needs to empower the existing higher

education institutions in order to stimulate research.

Thus, in the context of the proposed scenarios and the insights from the findings of this

study, it is suggested that studies aimed at informing policy and pedagogical decisions be aligned

with the research as follows: (1) Comparative and contrastive linguistics research: this type of

study would compare the linguistic systems of Portuguese and the African languages involved in

the experimental project, (2) sociolinguistic studies and surveys: large scale surveys would

provide insights about the various factors that affect language use and the choice of language of

instruction (large scale language attitude surveys), and (3) longitudinal ethnography of language

policy: aims at providing insights form localized studies in schools about how various agents

involved in education policy react and interpret current language policies.

In summary, although the bulk of research cited in this study illuminates our

understanding of the issues of bilingual education, localized and contextualized research is

crucial for successful implementation of bilingual education program in Angola. Moreover, it is

a truism that bilingual education and the choice of language of instruction are politically and

ideologically laden issues (Cummins, 2009; Hamilton, 1991; Prah, 2000). Consequently, the

179
results of localized research would also shed light on the various factors and competing interests

that shape the language debate in Angola.

Institutional Support

It has been mentioned throughout the foregoing that, language policy is not a neutral

endeavor. Lack of political will has been mentioned in many African language policy studies as

being the main hindrance for implementing language policies that would promote linguistic

diversity and multilingual language education in schools (Alexander, 2008; Bamgbose, 2000).

Research in Lusophone Africa (Augusto, 2012; Lopes, 2004) and Anglophone Africa (Brock-

Utne, 2012; Heugh & Mulumba, 2014) has demonstrated that institutional support from local and

global institutions plays a crucial role in the quality of bilingual education programs. Successful

bilingual programs such as the ones in Latin America (Bolivia) and Africa (Cameroon),

specifically the program for professional development in bilingual intercultural education for the

Andean countries (PROEIB Maestría) and the operational research project for language teaching

in Cameroon (PROPELCA) owe their success to strong institutional support both from the local

and global institutions such as UNICEF and UNESCO (Téllez & Varghese, 2013; Tadadjeu,

2004). Language and literacy policies that support bilingual instruction and the development of

biliterate students require that the central government and the agency responsible for education

reform, establish clear benchmarks of what to accomplish and provide human and financial

support necessary for successful implementation of education policies (Olson, 2005).

Institutional support is crucial for ensuring that teacher education programs, both the

traditional university based programs and the alternative fast track programs receive appropriate

funding and resources in order to develop curricular materials designed for bilingual education

180
and literacy development. Such responsibility should not be confined to institutions such as the

current national institute for investigation and development of education (INIDE); rather, in the

context of the proposed national board for bilingual education (NBBE) all concerned parties

should contribute to ensuring that produced materials meet the established benchmarks for

bilingual education. In this sense, the decentralization of activities and delegation of authority to

provincial governments, educational agencies, and Regional Boards for Bilingual Education

(RBBE) would be aligned with the program established by the national board for bilingual

education and the MoE in order to avoid disharmonious implementation of bilingual education

nationwide.

Decentralization is a complex notion that involves the articulation of activities and goals

for social, political, and economic purposes. Decentralization of education system in Sub-

Saharan Africa (SSA) is a recent and an ongoing process. Although the research on

decentralization remains controversial, it is a truism that in SSA central governments through the

MoE continue to play a central role in the management, administration, and funding of

educational systems (Naidoo, 2005). However, given the complexity involved in the

decentralization process, in the implementation of the proposed policy frameworks

decentralization of services needs to be approached with care in order to avoid inconsistencies in

policy implementation. In this respect, the case of Ethiopia is instructive. For example, Ethiopia

has extended MTBE to years within the regional framework. However, because of lack of

supervision and follow up from the central educational authorities different regions have

produced and adopted non-uniform language programs (Heugh, 2009b).

181
 Based on the research on bilingual education in Africa, UNESCO (2011, pp. 12-13)

outlines the responsibilities of the local and provincial authorities for promoting bilingual

education programs, as follows: (1) Participate in preparatory missions on the sites in which the

multilingual basic education continuum is located; (2) monitor activities relative to the setting

up of infrastructure, (3) recruitment of students, (4) assist educational institutions with resources

in order to conduct comparative assessments between bilingual schools and between bilingual

schools and normal schools, (5) mobilize grassroots communities to support the language

initiatives, and (6) collaborate and cooperate with teacher unions and syndicates in order to

provide them with timely information and support.

Of course, as the planner and coordinator of national budget for education, the central

government, plays a crucial role in enforcing accountability and responsibility in the context of

site-based and decentralized education system. It is also the government’s responsibility to

provide funds to help launch preparatory works and to mobilize all interested parties, including

NGO to actively participate in the process. As the institution with the monopoly of mass media

communication, the government should ensure that existing programs and activities that aim to

promote African languages are carried out both within the public and private media. My use of

the term media here encompasses both written, spoken, and images, specifically media such as

television broadcasting, radio, internet, and other electronic online media (Coronel-Molina,

2012).

The Role of Media

A number of language policy studies in multilingual contexts have underscored the role

of media in education policy in general and language policy specifically (See, Anderson, 2007;

182
Bell, 1995; Blommaert, Kelly-Holmes, Lane, Leppänen, Moriarty, Pietikäinen & Piirainen,

2009; Callaghan & Schnell, 2001; Cormack, 2004; Karam, 1974; Kellner & Share, 2005; Kelly-

Holmes, Moriarty & Pietikäinen, 2009; McKay, 2011; Shahanan, McBeth, Hathaway & Arnell,

2008). Suffice it to say that the media is an important aspect of language policy studies,

specifically the research using critical discourse analysis (Blackledge, 2005; W. Wright 2005).

For my purposes, I wish to highlight the role that media plays in the context of language

educational reform in general, in increasing linguistic awareness, and promoting bilingual

education policy initiative specifically.

In the context of language policy under investigation in this study, media is important

because it has the potential to better inform the public opinion about the usefulness of the

ongoing language education reform and the pedagogical advantages of MTBE for school

achievement and cognitive development. Moreover, the press can play an important role in the

efforts to clarify the reason for introducing African languages into the school system and

encourage language policies that would promote equal opportunity and equity in education.

Media can potentially serve as an alternative mechanism for empowerment and social

transformation.

Although the mass media diffusion of African languages through television broadcasting

and radio programs already exist, the findings of this study reveal that the extension of mass

media coverage for African languages is very limited both in scope and breadth. Thus, it is

suggested that more media coverage be given to African languages. The creation of programs

that can compete with those shown on commercial channels such a Zimbu and the Angolan

television (TPA 2) may probably arouse more interest on the part of the youth to learn African

183
languages. Additionally, language policy scholar such Spolsky (2009) have recognized the

relevance of linguistic landscape in language policy and literacy efforts. Linguistic landscape

perspective concerns the study language in the landscape signage, names of places,

advertisement in urban areas (Spolsky, 2009). So, written media such advertisement shown in

different languages is revealing of a landscape with multilingual practices (Shohamy, 2009;

Shohamy & Gorter, 2009; Spolsky, 2009). The contribution of mass media in the revival of

languages has been documented (Kloss, 1969; Obeng & Adegbija, 1999).

In summary, there are various ways that media resources can be of use for the promotion

of African languages and the maintenance of linguistic diversity. I have argued that media play

an important role in shaping language attitudes and public opinion about what counts as language

and the linguistic practices that are included while others are excluded. Mass media, specifically

television and radio have served in the past and will continue to serve as the mechanism through

which language attitudes and public discourses about social issues and language use can be

successfully be changed. In spite the lack of firm evidence about its effectiveness in language

maintenance and revitalization efforts, mass media remains a powerful mechanism for language

policy that aims at reversing language shift (Fishman, 2001) and linguistic diversity (Moses,

2007).

Parents, Communities, and the Civil Society

Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of emphasis on the role of parents, teachers and

communities in language revitalization, maintenance efforts and bilingual education policy. The

reasons for such appeal to parents and community involvement in education policy efforts are

manifold. There have been two important philosophical thoughts on how a child ought to learn a

184
language and literacy education. The first view advocates that parents ought to create the

conditions that help expose children to literacy learning at home. The second view holds that

children with parents who are less educated and with low socioeconomic status come to school

with disadvantages because the home environment does not provide the conditions and the

opportunities to develop the basic skills required for school (Keislar & Stern, 1968). These views

are much contested in sociolinguistics and linguistics because they take the deficit approach,

which attributes learners failure to their community background or to the students themselves. In

doing so, they fail to question and problematize the role of instutional power (schools) in

children school failure. Although involving parents and communities is important, equally

important is the value of the community’s cultural resources (See, Heath, 1983; Snow, 2014).

The term bottom-up (micro-language policies) is widely used in LPP research in order to

differentiate the policies that stem from government agencies (top-down or macro-language

policies) and those that involve the community efforts for language maintenance and

revitalization (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2004; Hatoss, 2006; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008; Omoniyi,

2007).

Micro-language policies include the role of various actors and agents, including parents,

communities and non-governmental organizations. Within the context of this study, I have thus

far argued that involving the parents and communities in the language education reform effort is

a critical step because children learn their first language behaviors at home with the family and

the community. Moreover, as Snow (2014) notes, language acquisition is context bound activity

and literacy is learned from caregivers, teachers, and parents. Thus, parents and the home

environment propitiate the development of socio-emotional development required for successful

185
literacy development in early-childhood. This is critical because the research evidence on early-

childhood development has demonstrated that literacy skills (reading and writing) acquired in

early-childhood (from birth to age 5) constitutes a strong predictor of child’s literacy

development in later stages (National Institute for Literacy, 2008) and parents play a crucial role

in this process (Baldauf, 2005, 2006; Curdt-Christiansen, 2002; Friedman, 2012; Gerena, 2011;

Grant & Wong, 2004; Greenwood & Hickman, 1991; Luke, 1995; Spolsky & Shohamy, 2000;

Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Warriner, 2011 ).

Although research on parent involvement remains controversial, sociolinguistic research

on bilingualism (Garcia, 1991; McGroarty, 2009; Mesthrie, 2006, 2011; Mesthrie & Leap, 2009),

psycholinguistic approaches to language policy (Baker, 2006) and bilingual education and

biliteracy development (Baker, 2000, 2011; Goldenberg, Reese & Rezaei, 2011; Pérez, 2004)

have demonstrated that school-family cooperation is crucial for building the school environment

conducive to effective and efficacious learning and contribute to successful bilingual and

multilingual education (Baker, 2003a, 2003b; Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Montecel & Danini,

2002; Tucker, 1996, 1998, 1999; Sevinç & Ӧnkol, 2009; Wei, 2001, 2008). In addition, as the

finding of this study indicate lack of knowledge and information on the part of communities may

contribute to parents and community dismissal of bilingual education efforts (Alexander,2008)

and marketing the benefits of bilingualism to parents and communities may increase the chances

for successful implementation of bilingual education programs in schools (Edwards &

Newcombe, 2006).

In respect to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), it is noteworthy that in the

context of current global economic transformation characterized by neoliberal market

186
arrangements in education (Carnoy, 1999; Rizv, Lingard & Lavia, 2006; Zajda, 2005; 2010),

NGO’s have increasingly become valid stakeholders both in the provision of services and

resources. As a result, to cater for the bilingual education provision in schools, many countries

have relied on the assistance from NGO’s. Although NGO’s are often seen as representing the

lucrative interests of transnational corporations, they cannot be dismissed as they provide

invaluable assistance to governments that have become more reliant on the market and the

apparently illusive weakening of the welfare state (Green, 1997). Many successful bilingual

education programs in South America are supported by NGO’s (De Mejía, 2005).

To reiterate, the advantages of involving parents and communities in language learning

and literacy efforts have been well documented (Chabata, 2013; Christ, Wang & Chiu, 2011;

Goldenberg, Reese & Rezaei, 201; Minami, 201; Nyati-Ramahobo, 2006; Semali, 1999). In

short, parents and community involvement in language education efforts is multidimensional and

constitute an important contribution to the maintenance of bilingual and multilingual education

programs that aim to promote biliteracy, multilingualism, and linguistic diversity in education.

Parents, communities and NGO’s can significantly contribute to language policy bottom-up

strategies.

Concluding Remarks

This dissertation analyzed issues related to the discursive and ideological construction of

the current language education policy in Angola. The goal of discursive and ideological

examination was to chart the socio-historical conditions, the discursive and ideological

configurations that have shaped the language education policy that aim at introducing African

languages as medium of instruction into the school system. I have argued that, despite the

187
empirical evidence about the usefulness of children’s mother tongue in the learning process,

language ideologies that view linguistic diversity as a problem persist in many Sub-Saharan

African countries, specifically in Angola. The main argument of this study was that, for the

successful maintenance, consolidation, and development of African language to take place, there

is a need to change the linguistic ideologies and attitudes that have been used to perpetuate the

hegemony of Portuguese and marginalization of African languages.

Moreover, the study showed that Portuguese and African languages can co-exist in the

regime of complementarity as both Portuguese and national languages represent the sociocultural

identity of the Angolan people. Given the relevance of these languages in the construction of the

Angolan nation, a further argument was that language planning and policy in Angola needs to

factor not only the communicative value of Portuguese, but also the need to bolster the market

value of African languages and project them into the official domain of use. One of the

participants felt that the formulation of an inclusive and democratic language education policy

would benefit more by implementing a deliberative democratic process in which all the

stakeholders, specifically the parents and communities are consulted and actively involved. The

success and failure of any language education policy, will to some extent, be determined by the

ideological positions and attitudes of the communities and parents who send their children to

school. The findings of this study revealed that language policy creation is a dynamic and

multilayered process that involves not only the struggle of ideological and economic interests,

but also negotiations, contradictions and compromise.

Unlike the previous language policy studies that conceptualized language policy as the

work of the institutional forces, the findings of this study suggested that language education

188
policy is a dynamic and complex process— language policy is a hegemonic, symbolic, and a

discursive act that is socially, historically, and politically situated. In other words, language

policy is a product of governmentality— a multilayered process involving various actors and

social agents. To build my argument, I reviewed and discussed the theoretical perspectives and

recent developments in language planning and policy by contrasting the old language planning

and policy theory that viewed language planning in rationalist perspective (solving problem)

against the current developments in language palling and policy. The findings of this study

corroborate the view that in the context of the local and global governmentality, nationalist

discourses have been recruited to sustain neoliberal agendas expressed in terms of national and

technological development (Harvey, 2005). To sustain my arguments for the proposed bilingual

education policy, in chapter two, I conducted a critical review of the literature on bilingualism,

second language learning, linguistic ideologies and language attitudes. In order to contextualize

my discussion of language policy in Angola, I also reviewed relevant literature on language

planning and policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. Literature on the prevalent models of bilingual

education in sub-Saharan and their implication for the educational purposes was also discussed.

On the basis of the review, I have argued that rather than viewing multilingualism as a

problem, multilingualism should be viewed as a resource that can be harnessed for the promotion

of an inclusive and democratic language education policy. Previous studies did not consider the

role of the media, attitudes, and the impact of the current language planning, specifically the

orthographic accord that establishes the unification of orthography in countries with Portuguese

as an official language. As the findings and the literature review indicated, the orthographic

accord may pose challenges to the development of an inclusive language education policy.

189
 The literature review of language education policy suggested that there is a need to take

the orthographic reform into consideration in the language education policy debate. Thus, the

study also paid attention to the discursive and ideological motivations and interests for

promoting a unified orthography in a multilingual country such as Angola. The findings reported

in Chapter 5 confirm that, more often than not, language issues are subordinated to political and

ideological motivations than to linguistic considerations. The findings also revealed that despite

the difficulties that exist in promoting multilingualism, people are aware of the advantages of

maintaining a mother tongue-based bilingual education. Nevertheless, in order to implement a

mother tongue-based bilingual education system there is a need to promote language awareness

campaigns at the grassroots level. The findings also revealed that linguistic differentiation and

subjectification do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they exist under particular historical, economic,

and political conditions. In the particular case of Angola, as the findings suggest, linguistic

processes have been shaped and influenced by the colonial linguistic ideologies and the

contemporary discourses of social development and globalization. Moreover, the study also

reveals the complex intersection between language ideology and media discourse, and how they

influence the debate concerning language and identity (Heck, 1980; Milani & Johnson, 2010).

Popular language awareness may significantly help change the entrenched negative

attitudes and beliefs towards African indigenous languages. The study also revealed weaknesses

in the legal framework that sustains the use of African languages as medium of instruction,

particularly in respect to the allocation of resources. I argued that if there is no guarantee for

resources, then, the implementation of the current language policy can be seen as a manifestation

of intentions and a wishful thinking that cannot be materialized. In respect to the relationship

190
between language and identity, the findings revealed that although most people continue to view

African languages as a marker of individual and collective identity, some of the participants

showed ambivalent identity positions. This was an indication that identity formation is a dynamic

and complex process in which individuals take various subject positions.

Another important aspect of this study is that, the findings revealed how local discourses

about language use and language education are influenced by global and transnational discourses

and experiences. The discourse of English as a global language is the case in point. Although the

participants were able to critically reflect on the pragmatic and creative role of English, the

findings also suggested that the growing status of English in non-English speaking countries,

poses additional challenges to language policy that aim to promote African indigenous

languages. In order words, language education policy approaches need to have a clear position

about the status and role of languages, including English, particularly in the context of complex

global social configurations.

Regarding the status of Portuguese and African languages, I have argued that national

languages and Portuguese (the Angolan variety of Portuguese) constitute the markers of

sociocultural Angolan identity and as such they should be accorded the same value and status. I

concur with Alidou (2003b) that the Angolan variety of Portuguese (AVP) should be recognized

as an Angolan language imbued with an African identity. Moreover, the promotion of AVP is

congruent with the current epistemological and theoretical shifts in the field of language studies

(Blommaert, 2010; Coupland, 2010; Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Pennycook, 2012), language

policy (Spolsky, Inbar-Lourie & Tannenbaun, 2015) and the need to rethink and reinvent what

people consider as the Portuguese language within the context of current socio-cultural global

191
transformation in the Lusophone Africa (Moita-Lopes, 2015). As the findings of this study

revealed, the concession of the status of co-official languages to African indigenous languages

(national languages) would be the confirmation of the value of both in the construction of unity

in diversity and the preservation of its cultural heritage. Therefore, the regional bilingual formula

(2+1) proposed in Chapter 6 would be the most appropriate way to approach language education

in Angola. Teacher training, the involvement of all stakeholders, including the civil society

organizations is of paramount importance.

In conclusion, despite the conflicts and contradictions that emerged from the findings of

this study, it is clear that in Angola the language ideological debate involves two extremes. On

the one hand, those who insist on maintaining the monolingual ideology of Portuguese and those

who call for the politics of complementarity and coexistence of Portuguese and African

indigenous languages on the other hand. This study aligns with the latter position. Moving

beyond the gaps and weaknesses of the current language education policy, the findings

demonstrate that there has been a significant change of discourse regarding the usefulness of

African languages. What it is clear is that, despite the insufficiencies, the new language policy

paves the way to a new era in the debate of the language question in Angola. It is also clear that

the policy opens up an ideological space that can be explored creatively to further the agenda of

promoting linguistic diversity, bilingualism, and multilingualism in education. The findings of

this study also suggest that the language education debate in Angola is situated in distinct

discursive fields. This diversity of perspectives suggests that language questions in SSA,

specifically in Angola requires a shift of paradigm— rather than viewing languages from the

deficit and oppositional perspectives, languages and language varieties can thrive in

192
complementarity regime based on their functional and pragmatic domains of use (Fardon &

Furniss, 1994). The findings corroborate the view that the choices of language that lead to the

sociolinguistic hierrarchization of language cannot solely be viewed from a pragmatic

perspective. In other words, individuals’ choice of language are shaped and influenced by an

array and interplay of factors (Djité, 2011). Therefore, a successful implementation of the

bilingual and multilingual education framework proposed herein, will greatly depend on how

much compromise the government is willing to make and the ability of the various stakeholders,

specially the commitment of the community of speakers of African languages to build a

momentum and use the available legal statuses for furthering advocacy activities in favor of a

democratic integration and multilingual education (Matsinhe, 2013).

193
 REFERENCES

Abdulaziz, M. H. (2003). The history of language policy in Africa with reference to language

choice in education. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of education

(pp.103-111). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO.

ADEA (2006). Optimizing learning and education in Africa- the language factor: A stock-taking

research on mother tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Libreville,

Gabon: ADEA & UNESCO.

Adegbija, E. E. (1994). Language attitudes in sub-Saharan Africa: a sociolinguistic overview.

Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Adegbija, E. E. (2000). Language attitudes in West Africa. International Journal of Sociology of

Language 141, 75-100.

Adegbija, E. E. (2003). Central language issues in literacy and basic education: three mother

tongue experiments in Nigeria. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of

education (pp. 299-331). Hamburg: UNESCO.

Adekola, O. A. (2007). Language, literacy and learning in primary schools: Implications for

teacher development programs in Nigeria. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved

from

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPEDUCATION/Resources/444659-

1212165766431/ED_Language_literacy_learning_primary_schools_Nigeria.pdf

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and

meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational

Research, 80(2), 207-244. doi: 10.3102/0043654310368803.

194
Ager, D. E. (2001). Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Akinnaso, N. F. (1993). Toward the development of a multilingual language policy in Nigeria.

Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 29-61.

Albaugh, E. A. (2014). State-building and multilingual education in Africa. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, N. (2000). Bilingual education as a necessary transitional strategy in post-colonial

Africa. In J. F. Pfaffe (Ed.), Local languages in education, science and technology (pp.

16-28). University of Malawi: Center for Language Studies.

Alexander, N. (2007). Linguistic diversity in Africa in a global perspective. In N. Alexander, &

B. Busch (Eds.), Literacy and linguistic diversity in a global perspective: An intercultural

exchange with African countries (pp. 13-22). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Alexander, N. (2008). Creating the conditions for a counter-hegemonic strategy: African

languages in the twenty -first century. In C.B. Vigouroux, & S.S. Mufwene (Eds.),

Globalization and language vitality: perspectives from Africa (pp. 255-271). London:

Continuum.

Alexander, N. (2009a). Evolving African Approaches to the Management of Linguistics

Diversity. Language Matters: Studies in the Language of Africa, 40(2), 117-132.

Retrieved May 3, 2012, from

www,tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10228190903213795.

195
Alexander, N. (2009b). Mother Tongue Based Education in Africa: A Cultural Imperative.

Humanities, Social Science and Law, 4, 199-214. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from

www.springerlink.com/content/v24066628153906.9/

Alexander, N., & Busch, B. (Eds.) (2007). Literacy and linguistic diversity in a global

perspective: An intercultural exchange with African countries. Strasbourg: Council of

Europe Publishing.

Alidou, H. (2003a). Medium of instruction in post-colonial Africa. In J.W. Tollefson, & A. Tsui

(Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp.195-214).

Mahwah & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Alidou, H. (2003b). Language policies and language education in Francophonie Africa: A

critique and a call action. In S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, A. F. Ball, & A. K. Spears

(Eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and Americans (pp.

103-116). London & New York: Routledge.

Alidou, H. (2004). Medium of instruction in post-colonial Africa. In J. W. Tollefson & A. B. M.

Tsui (Eds.). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 195-

214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y., Heugh, K., & Wolff, H. E. (2006, March 27).

Optimizing learning and education in Africa-the language factor: A stock-taking research

on mother tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Association for the

Development of education in Africa , ADEA. Retrieved August 7, 2012, from

www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/adea/downloadcenter/Ouga/B3_1_MTBLE_en.pdf

196
Alidou, O. (2000). Francophonie, World Bank, and the collapse of the Francophone Africa

educational system. In S.Federeci, G. Caffentzis, & O. Alidou (Eds.), A thousand

flowers: Social struggles against structural adjustment in African universities (pp. 37-

42). Trenton: Africa World Press.

Allan, E.J., Iverson, S. V., & Ropers-Huilman, R. (Eds.). (2010). Reconstructing policy in higher

education: feminist post-structural perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Anchimbe, E. A. (2006). Functional seclusion and the future of indigenous languages in Africa:

the case of Cameroon. In J. Mugane. J. P. Hutchinson, & D. A. Worman (Eds.), Selected

proceedings of the annual conference on African linguistics: African languages and

linguistics in broad perspectives (pp. 95-103). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings

Project.

Anchimbe, E. A. (2013). Language policy and identity construction: The dynamics of

Cameroon’s multilingualism. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Company.

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of

nationalism. London:Verso.

Anderson, K. T. (2008). Indexicality. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative

research methods (pp. 424-425). London: Sage Publications.

Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. New York, NY: Edward

Arnold.

Arenas, F. (2003). Utopias of otherness: Nationhood and subjectivity in Portugal and Brazil.

Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

197
Arenas, F. (2011). Lusophone Africa: Beyond independence. Minneapolis, MN: The University

of Minnesota Press.

Asfaha, Y. M. (2013). From policy to practice: Multiple language and script education in Eritrea.

In J. A. Shoba & F. Chimbutane (Eds.), Bilingual education and language policy in the

global South (pp. 49-65). New York & London: Routledge.

Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,

27(1), 9-27.

August, D., Beck, I. L., Calderón, M., Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N. K., & Shanahan, T. (2008).

Instruction and professional development. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.),

Developing reading and writing in second language learners: lessons from the Report of

the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth (131-250). New

York & London: Routledge.

Augusto, A. F. (2012). Assessing the introduction of Angolan indigenous languages in the

educational system in Luanda: A language policy perspective. (Unpublished Master

thesis). University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from

http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/11378/Antonio%20Augusto%20Fina

l%20MA.pdf?sequence=2

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten

years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: what does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse:

studies in the cultural politics of education, 21(1), 45-57.

198
Bailey, R., & Schecter, S. R. (1996). Strategies for bilingual maintenance: Case studies of

Mexican-origin families in Texas. Linguistics and Education, 8(4), 389-408.

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2000). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism parents’ and teacher’s guides.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3r ed). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2003a). Biliteracy and transliteracy in Wales: Language planning and the Welsh

national curriculum. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua biliteracy: An ecological

framework for educational policy research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 71-

90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2003b). Education as a site of language contact. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 23, 95-112.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. (2007). Becoming bilingual through bilingual education. In P. Auer, & L. Wei (Eds.),

Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 131-151). Berlin &

New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

199
Baker, K. A., & de Kanter, A. A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of

literature. Washington D.C: Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC database

(ED215010).

Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., McGee, V., & Emerson, C. (1986). Speech genres and other late

essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baldauf, R. B. (1994). "Unplanned" language policy and planning. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 14, 82-89.

Baldauf, R. B. (2005). Language planning and policy research: an overview. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.957-970). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Baldauf, R. B. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology

context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 147-170.

Baldauf, R. B., & Kaplan, R. B. (2004). (Eds.), Language planning and policy in Africa:

Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa (Vol. 1). Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: the Australian

journal of educational studies, 13(2), 10-17.

Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: a personal review of recent

education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257-

274. Retrieved August 31, 2012, from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/1502044

200
Bamgbose, A. (1991). Language and the nation: The language in sub-Saharan Africa.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Bamgbose, A. (2000). Language and exclusion: the consequences of language policies in Africa.

Hamburg: Münster

Bamgbose, A. (2004, January 20). Language of instruction policy and practice in Africa.

unesco.org. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from

www.unesco.org/education/languages_2004/languageinstruction_africa.pdf

Bamgbose, A. (2005). Mother tongue education: lessons from the Yoruba experience. In B.

Brock-Utne, & R. K. Hopson (Eds.), Language of instruction in African emancipation:

Focus on postcolonial contexts and considerations (pp. 210-234). Cape Town: CASAS.

Bamgbose, A. (2007a). Language and literacy issues in Africa. In N. Alexander, & B. Busch

(Eds.), Literacy and linguistic diversity in a global perspective: An intercultural

exchange with African countries (pp. 23-38). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Bamgbose, A. (2007b). Multilingualism and exclusion: Policy, practice and prospects. In

P.Cuvilier, T. du Plessis, M. Meeuwis, & L. Teck (Eds.), Multilingualism and exclusion:

Policy, practice and prospects: studies in language policy in South Africa (pp. 1-12).

Pretoria: Van Schaik Publisher

Bamgbose, A. (2011). African languages today: The challenge of and prospects for

empowerment under globalization. In E. G. Bokamba, R. K. Shosted, & B. T. Ayalew

(Eds.), The 40th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Paper presented at the 40th

Annual Conference on African linguistics (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla

Proceedings Project.

201
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York, NY: The Noonday Press.

Bartram, B. (2010). Attitudes to modern foreign language learning: Insights from comparative

education. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Bascia, N., Cumming, A., Datnow, A., Leithwood, K., & Livingstone, D. (2005). International

handbook of educational policy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Batibo, H. M. (2005). Language decline and death in Africa: causes, consequences, and

challenges. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Batibo, H. M. (2013). Maximizing people’s participation through optimal language policy:

Lessons from the SADC region. In H. McLLWraith (Ed.), Multilingual education in

Africa: Lessons from the Juba language –in-education conference (pp. 109-115).

London: British Council.

Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language ideology and the politics of

inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior

(Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: an introduction to analyzing texts and

textual practices (pp. 83-96) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishing.

Begley, S. (2011, September 23). The positive effects of bilingualism in the adult brain.

www.rosettastone.com. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from

www.rosettastone.com/content/dam/rosettastonecom/pdfs/The_Positive_Effects_of_Bilin

gualism_in_the_Adult_Mind_and_Brain.pdf

Bell, A. (1995). Language and the media. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 23-41.

202
Bender, G. J. (2004). Angola under the Portuguese: the myth and the reality. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Benson, C. (2000). The primary bilingual education experiment in Mozambique, 1993 to 1997.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(3), 149-166.

Benson, C. (2005). The importance of mother tongue-based schooling for educational quality.

EFA Global Monitoring Report. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001466/146632e.pdf

Benson, C. (2009). Designing effective schooling in multilingual contexts: going beyond

bilingual models. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas., R. Phillipson., A.K. Mohanty, & P. Minaty

(Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 63-81). Bristol,UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

Bermel. N. (2007). Linguistic authority, language ideology, and metaphor: The Czech

orthography wars. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, code and control, Volume

IV. London: Routledge.

Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Interdiscursivity in critical genre analysis. Public Relations Working

Papers, 391-400. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/146

Bhatia, V.K. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse &

Communication, 21(1), 32-50. doi:10.1177/1750481309351208.

203
Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University press.

Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child

Development, 70, 636-644.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research.

Language Learning, 52(1), 159-199.

Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism; how linguistic experience leads to

cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3),

210-223.

Bialystok, E. (2009). Effects of bilingualism on cognitive and linguistic performance across the

life span. In I. Gogolin, & U. Neumann (Eds.), The bilingualism controversy (pp.53-67).

Wiesbaden: Springer Science+Business Media.

Bialystok, E. (2011). Coordination of executive functions in monolingual and bilingual children.

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110,461-468.

Bialystok, E. (2013). The impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T. K.

Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd

ed., pp. 624-648). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive control in proactive

interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual children and adults. Brain &

Language, 109(2), 93-100.

Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and

bilingual children. In A. Y. Durgunoglu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy

204
 development in bilingual settings (pp. 121-138). New York & London: The Guilford

Press.

Bialystok, E., & Viswanathan, M. (2009). Components of executive control with advantages for

bilingual children in two cultures. Cognition, 112(3), 495-500. Retrieved July 12, 2012,

from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755257/pdf/nihms127345.pdf.

Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in

monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525-

531.

Billig, M. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: a social psychology of everyday thinking. London New

Bury Park: Sage Publications.

Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing.

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2008). Contesting 'language' as 'heritage': negotiation of identities

in late modernity. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-22. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from

htt://applij.oxfordjournals..org/

Blauner, R. (1969). Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt. Social Problems, 16(4), 393-408.

Retrieved January 10, 2012, from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/799949

Bloch, C. (2009). Enabling conditions for biliteracy learning. PRAESA Early Literacy Unit.

Paper presented at the 3 R’s Conference. Cape Town: PRAESA.

Bloch, C., & Alexander, N. (2003). A luta continua! The relevance of the continua of biliteracy

to South African multilingual schools. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua biliteracy: An

205
 ecological framework for educational policy research and practice in multilingual

settings (pp. 91-121). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Blommaert, J. (2001). Context is/as critique. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 13-32.

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Blommaert, J. (2007). Linguistic diversity: Africa. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.),

Handbook of language and communication: Diversity and change (pp. 123-149). Berlin

& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Blommaert, J. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1-20. Retrieved from

www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art1

Blommaert, J. (Ed.) (1999). Language Ideology debates. Hamburg: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language &

Communication, 25(3), 197-217.

Blommaert, J., Kelly-holmes, H., Lane, P., Leppänen, S., Moriarty, M., Pietikäinen, S., &

Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: An

introduction. Language Policy, 8(3), 203-207.

Blosser, B. J. (1983). Bilingual education on television: ensuring the cultural accuracy of a

children’s educational television series. In R. V. Padilla (Ed.), Theory, technology and

public policy on bilingual education (pp. 266-286). Rosslyn, VA: National Clearinghouse

for Bilingual education.

206
Bodomo, A. B. (1996). On language and development in Africa: The case of Ghana. Nordic

Journal of African Studies, 5(2), 31-51.

Bokamba. E. G. (1995). The politics of language planning in Africa: Critical choices for 21st

century. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Discrimination through language in Africa? Perspectives on

the Namibian experience (pp. 2-18). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bostad, F., Brandist, C., Evensen, L. S., & Faber, H. C. (Eds.) (2004). Bakhtinian perspectives

on language and culture: meaning in language, art and new media. Hampshire, UK:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.

Bow, C. (2013). Community-based orthography development in four western Zambian

languages. Writing Systems Research, 5(1), 73-87.

Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), 493-525.

Brock-Utne, B. (2001). Education for all: In whose language? Oxford Review of Education,

27(1), 115-134. Retrieved April 29, 2013 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1050997

Brock-Utne, B. (2002). Language, democracy and education in Africa. Uppsala: University

Printers.

Brock-Utne, B. (2007). Learning through a familiar versus learning through a foreign language

versus learning through a foreign language— A look at some secondary school

classrooms in Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(5), 487-

498. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev. 2006.10.004.

Brock-Utne, B. (2010a). Policy on the language of instruction issue in Africa: A spotlight on

South Africa and Tanzania. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational

207
 challenges in multilingual societies: LOITASA phase two research (pp.74 -101). Cape

Town, South Africa: African Minds.

Brock-Utne, B. (2010b). Research and policy on language of instruction issue in Africa.

International Journal of Educational Development, 30(6), 636-645.

Brock-Utne, B. (2012). Language policy and science: Could some African countries learn from

some Asian countries? International Review of Education, 58(4), 481-503. doi: 10.

1007/s11159-012-9308-2.

Brock-Utne, B., & Holmarsdottir, H. B. (2004). Language policies and practices in Tanzania and

South Africa: problems and challenges. International Journal of Educational

Development, 24, 67-83.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). Class, ethnicity, and language rights: An analysis of British colonial

policy in Lesotho and Sri Lanka and some implications for language policy. Journal of

Language, Identity, and Education, 1(3), 2007-234.

Bule, J. (2010, October 20). Conflito levou à diversidade das linguas nacionais no país [The

conflict brought the diversity of national languages into the country]. Retrieved from

htt://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/20/0/conflito_levou_a_diversity_das_linguas_nacionais_no_

pais.

Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503-523.

Butler, Y.G. (2013). Bilingualism/multilingualism and Second Language Acquisition. In T. K.

Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd

ed., pp. 109-136). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

208
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media

frame elite policy discourse. Political Communication, 18(2), 183-212.

Canvin, M. (2007). Language and education issues in policy and practice in Mali, West Africa.

In N. Rasool (Ed.), Global issues in language, education and development: perspectives

from post-colonial countries (pp. 157-187). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cardozo, M. S.S. (1944). The latest word on Portuguese orthography. American Association of

Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, 27(4), 508-510. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/333020.

Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: what planners need to know. Paris:

UNESCO. Retrieved May 2, 2012 from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001202/120274e.pdf

Caruana, S., & Lasagabaster, D. (2011). Using a holistic approach to approach language

attitudes in two multilingual contexts: The Basque country and Malta. In C. Varcasia

(Ed.), Becoming multilingual: Language learning and language policy between attitudes

and identities (pp. 39-61). Berne & Berlin: Peter Lang.

Casey, P., Dunlap, K., Brister, H., Dvidson, M., & Starrett, T. M. (2011). Sink or swim? Throw

us a life jacket! Novice alternatively certified bilingual and special education teachers

deserve options. Education and Urban Society, 45(3), 287-306.

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards a multilingual education: Basque educational research from an

international perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F (Eds.) (1998). Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual

education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

209
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). Multilingualism. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The routledge handbook of

applied linguistics (pp. 401-412). London: Routledge.

Cenoz, J.,Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language

acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Chabata, E. (2013). The language factor in the development of Africa; A case for the compilation

of specialized dictionaries in indigenous African languages. South African Journal of

African Languages, 33(1), 51-58. doi: 10.2989/0257211777.2013.793940.

Chaudenson, R. (2004). Geolinguistics, geopolitics, geostrategy: The case of French. In J.

Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalizing world (pp. 291-297).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chenai, R.J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: for addressing instrumentation and researcher

bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 16(1), 255-262. Retrieved,

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-1/interviewing.pdf

Chimbutane, F. (2009). The purpose and value of bilingual education: A critical, linguistic

ethnographic study of two rural primary schools in Mozambique (Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation), University of Birmingham, UK.

Chimbutane, F. (2011). Rethinking bilingual education in postcolonial contexts. Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Chimbutane, F. (2013). Can sociocultural gains sustain bilingual education programs in

postcolonial contexts? The case of Mozambique. In J. A. Shoba., & F. Chimbutane

(Eds.), Bilingual education and language policy in the global South (pp. 124-145). New

York, NY: Routledge.

210
Choi, J. K. (2003). Language attitudes and the future of bilingualism: The case of Paraguay.

International Journal of bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(1), 81-94. doi:

10.1080/13670050308667774.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical

discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Christ, H. (1997). Language attitudes and language policy. In R. Wodak, & D. Corson (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of language and education: language policy and political issues in

education (Vol.1 pp. 1-11). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Christ, T., Wang, C., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). Using story dictation support young children’s

vocabulary development: Outcomes and process. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,

26(1), 30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.06.002.

Chumbow, B. S. (1987). Towards a language planning model for Africa. Journal of West

African Languages, 12(1), 15-22.

Chumbow, B. S. (2005). The language question and national development in Africa. In T.

Mkandawire (Ed.), African intellectuals: Rethinking politics, language, gender and

development (pp.165-192). London & New York: Codesria Books.

Chumbow, B. S. (2009). Linguistic diversity, pluralism and national development in Africa.

Africa Development, 34(2), 21-45.

Chumbow, B. S. (2013). Mother tongue-based multilingual education: Empirical foundations,

implementation strategies and recommendations for new nations. In H. McLLWraith

(Ed.), Multilingual education in Africa: lessons from the Juba language –in-education

conference (pp. 37-56). London: British Council.

211
Clegg, J., & Afitska, O. (2011). Teaching and learning in two languages in African classrooms.

Comparative Education, 47(1), 61-77. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2011.541677.

Cobarrubias, J. (1983). Ethical issues in status planning. In J. Cobarrubias, & J. A. Fishman

(Eds.), Progress in language planning: international perspectives (pp. 41-85). Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter.

Codd, J. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. Journal

of Education Policy, 3(3), 235-247.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed). London

& New York: Routledge.

Collier, V. P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining log-term language minority student data

on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1-2), 187-212.

Collier, V.P. (1987/1988). The effects of age on acquisition of a second language for school.

NBCE, 2, 1-7.

Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2004). Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus

linguistics. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Conselho de Ministros (1987). Diário da república: Orgão official da República Popular de

Angola [The National Gazette: An official organ of the Popular Republic of Angola].

Luanda: Governo da República Popular de Angola.

Cooper, L. R., & Fishman, J. A. (1977). A study of language attitudes. The Bilingual Review,

4(1/2), 7-34.

212
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and d social change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cormack, M. (2004, March). Developing minority language media studies. Mercator Media

Forum, 7(1), 3-12).Retrieved from aberystwyth.ac.uk.

Coronel-Molina, S. M. (2013). New functional domains of Quechua and Aymara: Mass media

and social media. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: critical issues

(pp. 278-300). London & New York: Routledge.

Corson, D. (2000). Emancipatory leadership. International Jouranl of Leadership in Education,

3(2), 93-120.

Coulmas, F. (2005). Economic aspects of languages. In H. E Wiegard (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: an

international handbook of the science of language and society (pp. 1667-1674). Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter.

Coulmas, F. (2013). Sociolinguistics: the study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Coupland, N. (2010). Language, ideology, media and social change. Swiss Papers in English

Language and Literature, 24(1), 55-79. Retrieved from

URL:s/btest1cf.ac.uk/encap/resources/language ideology media.pdf

Cramer, J. (2009). Using pronouns to construct a European identity: the case of politicians at

Davos 2008. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers, 94-109.

Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

213
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Ideologies and interactions in multilingual education: What

can an ecological approach tell us about bilingual pedagogy? In C. Hélot & M. Ó Laoire

(Eds.), Language policy for multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible (pp. 3- 21).

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Creswell. J. W. (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five

approaches 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Creswell. J. W. (2009) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five

approaches 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Creswell. J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistics interdependence and educational development of bilingual

children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. Retrieved June 30, 2012,

from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/1169960.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational

success for language minority students. In California State department of education:

schooling and language minority students: a theoretical framework. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED 249773)

Cummins, J. (1995). The discourse on discrimination: Debate on bilingual education and human

rights in the United States. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic

214
 human rights: overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 159-177). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Cummins, J. (1999a). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a

place? Educational Researcher, 28(7), 26-41. Retrieved June, 2014 from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176138

Cummins, J. (1999b). The ethics of doublethink: language rights and the bilingual education

debate. TESOL, 8(3), 13-17. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002.j.1949-3533.1999.tb00188.x/abstract

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education?

Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20. Retrieved from

http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm

Cummins, J. (2005a). A Proposal for action: strategies for recognizing Heritage language

competence as a learning resource within the Mainstream Classroom. The Modern

Language Journal, 89 (4), 585-592.

Cummins, J. (2005b, September). Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language

education: Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education:

Teaching and Learning Two Languages in the EFL setting, Bogazici University, Istanbul,

Turkey. Retrieved June, 2014, from http://www.iteachilean.com/cummins/mother.htm

215
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms.

Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from

http://ojs.vre.upei.ca/index.php/cjal/article/view/267/328

Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual

education. In J. Cummins, & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and

education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 65-75). New York: Springer Science+ Media LLC.

Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental psycholinguistic and sociological principles underlying

educational success for linguistic minority students. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R.

Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds). Social justice through multilingual

education (pp.19-35). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2002, October 19). Maintaining heritage languages. Journal of

Communication & Education, 2(2), 34-36.

Dailey-O’cain, J., & Liebscher, G. (2009). Teacher and students use of the first language in

foreign language classroom interaction: Functions and applications. In M. Turnbull, & J.

Dailey-O’cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning

(pp.131-200). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century teacher education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 57(x), 1-15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Constructing 21st-Centity teacher education. In V. Hill-Jackson,

& C. W. Lewis (Eds.), Transforming teacher education: what went wrong with teacher

training , and how we can fix it (pp. 223-247). Sterling, VA: Stylus publishing.

216
Darling-Hammond, L., & Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How

well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education,

53(4), 286-302.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter?

Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.

De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

De Bot, K., & van der Hoeven, N. (2011). Language and aging. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The

routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 124-137). London: Routledge.

De Houver, A. (1999). Environmental factors in early bilingual development: The role of

parental beliefs and attitudes. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Bilingualism and

migration (pp.75-94). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

De Jong, E. J. (2003). Effective bilingual education: from theory to academic achievement in a

two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1-20.

De Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: ethics and dilemmas in qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

De Meija, A. (2005). Bilingual education in South America. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

De Palma, R. (2010). Language use in the two-way classroom: lessons from a Spanish-English

bilingual kindergarten. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher,

13(1), 19-28.

Dekeyser, R. M. (2013). Age effects of second language learning: stepping stones toward better

understanding. Language Learning, 63(1), 52-67.

217
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: the politics of interpretation.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Strategies of multiple triangulation. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L.

R. Lattuca (Eds.). Qualitative research in higher education: expanding perspectives

(second edition, pp. 317- 327). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Derni, A. (2008). The ecololinguistic paradigm: an integrationist trend in language study.

International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 24, 21-30.

Derrida, J. (1967). L’écriture et la difference. [Writing and Difference]. Paris: Édition Seuil.

Desai, Z. (2010). Laissez-faire approaches to language in education policy do not work in South

Africa. In Z. Desai, M. Qorro, & B. Brock-Utne (Eds.), Educational challenges in

multilingual societies: LOITASA phase two research (pp.102-112). Cape Town, South

Africa: African Minds.

Desai, Z. (2013). Local languages: good for the informal marketplace but not for formal

classroom? Education as Change, 17(2), 193-207.

Desmet, T., & Duyck, W. (2007). Bilingual language processing. Language and Linguistics

Compass, 1(3), 168-198.

Diallo, I. (2009). Attitudes toward speech communities in Senegal: a cross-sectional study.

Nordic Journal of African Studies, 18(3), 196-214.

218
Diarra, B. (2003). Choice and description of national languages with regard to their utility in

literacy and education in Angola. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of

education (pp.183-190). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO.

Diaz, R. M. (1983). Thought and two languages: the impact of bilingualism on cognitive

development. Review of Research in Education, 10, 23-54. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from

www.jstor.org/stable/1167134

Diaz, Z., Whitacre, M., Esquerdo, J. J., & Ruiz-Escalante, J. A. (2013). Why did I ask that

question? Bilingual/ESL pre-service teachers’ insights. International Journal of

instruction, 6(2), 163-176.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical

Education, 40, 314-321.

Djité, P. G. (2011). Development and the national language question: a case study. International

Journal of Sociology of Language, 2(2), 43-54.

Duchêne, A. (2008). Ideologies across nations: the construction of linguistic minorities at the

United Nations. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. New York,

NY: Routledge.

Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: an introduction. London: Verso.

Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London & New York: Routledge.

Edwards, J. (1996). Language, prestige, and stigma. In H.Goebel, P. H. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W.

Wölck (Eds.), Kontakt Linguistik: ein international handbuch [Contact linguistics: an

international handbook]. (pp. 805-811). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

219
Edwards, J. (2010). Language diversity in the classroom. Bristol: Multilingualism.

Edwards, J. (2013). Bilingualism and multilingualism: some central concepts. In T. K. Bhatia, &

W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp.5-

25). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Edwards, V., & Newcombe, L. P. (2006). Back to basics: marketing the benefits of bilingualism

to parents. In O. García., T. Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. E. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining

multilingual schools: languages in education and glocalization (pp. 137-149). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: understanding

relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality. Journal of

Literacy Research, 30(4), 449-487.

Eira, C. (1998). Authority and discourse: towards a model for orthography selection. Written

Language and Literacy, 1(2), 171-224.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of

educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Emmorey, K., Luk, G., Pyers, J. E., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The source of enhanced cognitive

control in blinguals: evidence form bimodal bilinguals. Psychological Science, 19(12),

1201-1206.

Ensink, T. (1997). The footing of royal address: an analysis of representativeness in political

speech, exemplified in Queen Beatrix’ address to the Knesset on March 28, 1995. In C.

Schӓffner (Ed.), Analyzing political speeches (pp. 5-32), Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

220
Fafunwa, A. B. (1990) Who is afraid of the use of African languages in education? In propos

Africains sur l’education pour tous. Selection d’artciles presentesa l’occasion de la

consultation regionale sur l’education pour tous. Dakar: UNESCO-UNICEF.

Fafunwa, A.B., Macauley, J. I., & Sokoya, A. (1989). Mother tongue education: the Ife primary

education research project (1970-1978). Ibadan: University Press Ltd.

Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: a method for advanced

students. London & New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and Text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse

analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193-217.

Fairclough, N. (1992c). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and education, 4

(3), 269-293.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the

university. Discourse and Society, 4 (2), 133-168.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: critical study of language London: Longman

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed0. New York, NY: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London & New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language (2nd. edition.).

Harlow: Longman.

221
Fairclough, N., Muldering, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. v. A. Dijk

(ed.). Discourse Studies: a multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357-378), London &

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Fardon, R., & Furniss, G. (1994). Introduction: Frontiers and boundaries—African languages as

political environment. In R. Fardon, & G. Furniss (Eds.), African languages, development

and the state. London & New York: Routledge.

Feijó, A. (2010, February 03). Uma palavra sobre as línguas angolanas [A word about the

Angolan languages]. Retrieved form http://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/19/0/uma-

_palavra_sobre_as_linguas-angolanas

Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University

Press.

Ferguson, G. (2013). English, development and education: charting the tensions. In E. J. Erling,

& P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and development: policy, pedagogy and globalization (pp.

21-44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Firmino, G. D. (1995). Revisiting the language question in post-colonial Africa: the case of

Portuguese and indigenous languages in Mozambique. Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/10857/1833

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (2002). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and

planning. London: Duke University Press.

Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory,

politics, and methods. Boca Raton, London: CRC Press.

222
Fishman, J. A. (1970). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction. Roley, MA: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. A. (1974). Language planning and language planning research: the state of the art. In

J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Advances in language planning (pp. 15-33). Paris: Mouton de

Hague.

Fishman, J. A. (1977). Bilingual education: an international perspective (2. printing. ed.).

Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publ..

Fishman, J. A. (2000). The status agenda in corpus planning. In R. D. Lambert, & E. Shohamy

(Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp.43-53).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fishman, J. A. (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?: reversing language shift, a 21st

century perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J. A. (2013). Language maintenance, language shift, and reversing language shift. In T.

K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism

(2nd ed., pp.466-494). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.) (1974). Advances in language planning. Netherlands: Mouton and Co. Pantheon

Books.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge; and, the discourse on language. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (2nd Vintage Books ed.).

New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, volume 1: an introduction. London. Penguin.

223
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.). The

Foucault effect: studies in governmentality, with two lectures by and an interview with

Michel Foucault (pp. 87-105). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Francis, N. (2005a). Democratic language policy for multilingual educational systems: an

interdisciplinary approach. Language Problems and Language Planning, 29(3), 211-230.

Francis, N. (2005b). Literacy, second language learning, and the development of metalinguistic

awareness: a study of bilingual children’s perceptions focus on form. Linguistics and

Education, 13(3), 373-404.

Freire, P. & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westeport, CT:

Bergin & Garvey.

Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York/London: Continuum.

Friedlander, A. (1994). Composition in English: effects of a first language on writing in English

as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: research insights from

classrooms (pp. 109-125).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friedman, D. A. (2012). Language socialization and language revitalization. In A. Duranti, E.

Ochs., & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization. Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Gaies, S. J., & Beebe, J. D. (1991). The matched-guise technique for measuring attitudes and

their implications for language education: a critical assessment. In E. Sadtono (Ed.),

Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp. 156-178). Florida:

Anthology Series.

224
Galdames, V., & Gaete, R. (2010). Chilean literacy education policies and classroom

implementation. In K. Menken, & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in

schools: educators as policy-makers (pp. 232-246). New York, NY: Routledge.

Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design

to analysis and publication. New York & London: New York University Press.

Garcez, P. M. (1995). Debating the 1990 Luso-Brazilian orthographic accord. Working Papers in

Educational Linguistics 9(2), 43-70.

Garcia, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: bilingualism and schooling in the

United States. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

García, O. (Ed.) (1991). Bilingual education: focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Garcia, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Ten guiding principles for teachers. In K. Menken & O.

Garcia (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: educators as policymakers (pp.

262-268).New York, NY: Routledge.

García, O., Barlett, L., & Kleifgen, J. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies. In P. Auer, & L.

Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 207-228).

Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gardiner, M. (1992). The dialogics of critique: M. M. Bakhtin and the theory of ideology.

London & New York: Routledge.

Gardner, R. C. (1959). Attitudes motivational variables in second language acquisition: an

investigation using LISREL causal modeling. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 13, 266-272.

225
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes

and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Garret, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Garret, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes: Social

meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Roley,

MA:Newbury House.

Gebrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (2003) Handbook of interviewing research: context and method.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gee, J. P. (2004). Learning language as a matter of learning social languages within discourses.

In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), Language and teacher education (pp.13-31). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. London & New

York: Sage Publications.

Geertz, C. J. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York, NY: Basic

Books, Inc. Publishers.

Geertz, C. J. (1983). Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

226
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and disorders: a

handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes

Publishing.

Genesse, F. & Gándara, P. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A crossnational perspective.

Journal of Social Issues, 55, 665-685.

Gerena, L. (2011). Parental voice and involvement in cultural context: understanding rationales,

values, and motivational constructs in a dual immersion setting. Urban Education, 46(3),

342-370.

Gibson, C. (1998). Semi-structured and unstructured interviewing: a comparison of

methodologies in research with patients following discharge from an acute psychiatric

hospital. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 5, 469-477.

Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language: contexts and consequences (Mapping social

psychology series). Milton Keynes, England: Open University.

Gillham, B. (2004). The research interview. London & New York: Continuum.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Literacy and the pedagogy of voice and political empowerment,

Educational Theory 38 (1), 61-75.

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles:

SAGE, A sage reference publication.

Glanz, C. (2013). Why and how to invest in African languages, multilingual and multicultural

education in Africa. In H. McLLWraith (Ed.), Multilingual education in Africa: lessons

from the Juba language –in-education conference (pp.57-67). London: British Council.

227
Glazer-Raymo (2010). Foreword. In E. J. Allan, S. V. Iverson & R. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.).

Reconstructing policy in higher education: feminist poststructural perspectives (pp. xi-

xvii). New York & London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (2001). Footing. In M. Wetherel, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory

and practice: reader (pp. 93-110). London: Sage Publications.

Gogolin, I. (1994). Der monolinguale habitus der multilingualen schule. [The monolingual

habitus as the common feature in teaching in the language of the majority in different

countries]. Münster: Waxmann-Verlag.

Gogolin, I. (2011). Bilingual education. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The routledge handbook of applied

linguistics (pp. 229-242). London & New York: Routledge.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Rezaei, A. (2011). Contexts for language and literacy development

among dual language learners. In A. Y. Durgunoğlu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language

and literacy development in bilingual settings (pp. 3-25) New York, NY: The Guilford

Press.

Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R. S., & August, D. (2008). Sociocultural contexts and literacy

development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing reading and writing in

second language learners: lessons from the report of the national literacy panel on

language minority children and youth (95-128). New York & London: Routledge.

Gottardo, A., Gu, Y., Mueller, J., Baciu, & Pauchulo, I. (2011). Factors affecting the relative

relationships between first and second language phonological awareness and second

language reading. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy

228
 development in bilingual settings (pp. 141-161). New York & London: The Guilford

Press.

Grant, R. A., & Wong, S. D. (2009). Forging multilingual communities: school-based strategies.

Multicultural Perspectives, 6(3), 17-23.doi:10.1207/s15327892mcp0603_4

Greenwood, G. E, & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research and practice in parent involvement:

implications for teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 279-288.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/100174

Grin, F. (2005). The economics of language policy implementation: identifying and measuring

costs. In N. Alexander (Ed.), Mother tongue based bilingual education in Southern

Africa: the dynamics of implementation (pp. 11-25). Cape Town: Multilingualism

Network & PRAESA.

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grosjean, F. (2011). An attempt isolate, and then differentiate, transfer and interference.

International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(1), 11-21.

Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Gupta, A., Ferguson, J. (2001). Beyond culture: space, identity, and the politics of difference. In

A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Culture, power and place: explorations in critical

anthropology (pp.33-51). Durham & London: Duke University Press.

Hakuta, K. (1986a). Mirror of language:The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.

Hakuta, K. (1986b). The role of research in policy decisions about bilingual education. Retrieved

from ERIC database. (ED 273736)

229
Hakuta, K. (2011). The policy context of research on basic processes in bilingual children in the

United States. In A. Y. Durgunoglu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and literacy

development in bilingual settings (pp. 335-341). New York & London: The Guilford

Press.

Hakuta, K., & Garcia, E. E. (1989). Bilingualism an Education. American Psychologist, 4(2),

374-379.

Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: a test of the critical period

hypothesis for second language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31-38.

Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M.(2004). Language and identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion of

linguistic anthropology (pp. 369-394). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a

social-semiotic perspective. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: aspects of language in a

social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, R. G. (1991). Lusofonia, Africa and matters of languages and letters. Hispania, 74(3),

324-335.

Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and

Communication, 17(3), 237-248.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: principles in practice (3rd ed.). London:

Routledge.

Hardin, V. B. (2010). Literacy models and diversity: Challenges facing bilingual preservice

teachers tutoring bilingual kindergarten students in an urban context. Paper presented at

230
 AERA 2010 Annual Conference, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from ERIC database.

(ED510280).

Harmaan, H. (1991). Basic aspects of language in human relations: towards a general

theoretical framework. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: new perspectives on

immigration discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hatoss, A. (2006). Community- level approaches in language planning: the case of Hungarian in

Australia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 287-305.

Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heck, M. C. (1990). Media and ideology. In S. Hall., D. Hobson., A. Lowe., & P. Willis (Eds.),

Culture, media, language: working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979 (pp. 110-116).

Birmingham: Routledge

Henriksen, S. M. (2010). Language Attitudes in a Primary School: a Bottom-Up Approach to

Language Education Policy in Mozambique (Doctoral Dissertation). Department of

Culture & Identity, Roskilde University. Retrieved from,

http://rudar.ruc.dk//bitstream/1800/6040/1/Phd_Dissertation_Final_Draft_.pdf

Heugh, K. (1996). Languages, development and reconstructing education in South Africa.

International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4), 301-313.

231
Heugh, K. (2007). Language and literacy issues in South Africa. In N. Rasool (Ed.), Global

issues in language, education and development: perspectives from post-colonial

countries (pp. 187-217). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Heugh, K. (2009a). Contesting the monolingual practices of a bilingual to multilingual policy.

English Teaching: practice and Critique, 8(2), 96-113.

Heugh, K. (2009b). Literacy and bi/multilingual education in Africa: Recovering collective

memory and expertise. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. K. Mohanty, & M.

Panda (Eds). Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 103-123). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Heugh, K. (2011a). Cost implications of the provision of mother-tongue and strong bilingual

models in Africa. In A. Ouane, & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimizing learning, education and

publishing in Africa: the Language factor- a review of analysis of theory and practice in

mother tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp.255-289). Hamburg,

Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Leraning (UIL)/ the Association for the

Development of Education in Africa (ADEA).

Heugh, K. (2011b). Theory and practice, language education models in Africa: research, design,

decision-making and outcomes. In A. Ouane, & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimizing learning,

education and publishing in Africa: the Language factor- a review of analysis of theory

and practice in mother tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 104-

155). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL)/ the

Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA).

232
Heugh, K. (2013). Navigating contested space, time, and position: ethnographic research in

bilingual and trilingual education system in Ethiopia. In J. A. Shoba., & F. Chimbutane

(Eds.). (2013). Bilingual education and language policy in the global South (pp. 104-

123). New York, NY: Routledge.

Heugh, K. (2013). Navigating contested space, time, and position: ethnographic research in

bilingual and trilingual education in Ethiopia. In J. A. Shoba, & F. Chimbutane (Eds.),

Bilingual education and language policy in the global South (pp. 104-123). New York &

London: Routledge.

Heugh, K., & Mulumba, M. (2014). Implementing local languages medium education in early

primary curriculum of Ugandan schools: a literacy and adult basic education (LABE)

intervention in six districts of North and North West Uganda. Kampala: LABE.

Hewitt, S. (2009). Discourse analysis and public policy research. New Castle University: Center

for Rural Economy. Retrieved from

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp24Hewitt.pdf

Hilmarsson-Dunn, A., & Mitchell, R. (2011). Multilingual migrants in England: factors affecting

their language use. In C. Varcasia (Ed.), Becoming multilingual: language learning and

language policy between attitudes and identities (pp. 65-86). Berne & Berlin: Peter Lang.

Hilton, N. H., & Gooskens, C. (2013). Language policies and attitudes towards Frisian in the

Netherlands. In C. Gooskens & R. van Bezooijen (Eds.), Phonetics in Europe:

perceptions and production (pp. 139-157). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Ho, V. (2011). What functions do intertextuality and interdiscursivity serve in request email

discourse? Journal of Pragmatics 43, 2534-2547. doi:10.1016/j.pargma.2011.04.002

233
Hodges, T. (2001). Angola: from Afro-Stalinism to petro-diamond capitalism. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). The constructionist analytics of interpretative practice.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research

(pp. 341-357). Los Angeles & London: Sage Publications.

Hornberger, N. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: indigenous,

immigrants, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27, 439-458.

Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: an

ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, 27-51.

Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: an

ecological approach. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua biliteracy: an ecological

framework for educational policy research and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 315-

339) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in

heritage language education. Modern Language Journal, 89, 605-609.

Hornberger, N. H. (2006). Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization: contetious

educational practices in Quechua, Guarani, and Maori contexts. Language,Identity and

Education, 5(4), 277-292. Retrieved May 21, 2012, from

htt://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/150

Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2003). Continua biliteracy: an ecological framework for educational

policy research and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

234
Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2010). Can schools save indigenous languages? policy on four

continents. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hornberger, N. H., & Hult, F.M. (2008). Ecological language education policy. In S. Bernard &

F. M. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 280-296). Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Hossain, T., & Pratt, C. B. (2008). Language rights: a framework for ensuring social equity in

planning and implementing national-education policies. New Horizon, 56(3), 63-74.

Hyden, G. (2006). African politics in comparative perspective. Cambrideg: Cambridge

University Press.

Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity

(Ed.). Regimes of language: ideologies, polities and identities (pp. 85- 138). Oxford:

James Currey.

Jaworski, A & Coupland, N. (1999). Discourse Reader. London & New York: Routledge.

Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary. Modern Language

Journal, 88(iii), 416-432.

Johns, A. M. (1994). L1 composition theories: implications for developing theories of L2

composition. Second language writing (pp. 25-35). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Johnson, D. C. (2004). Language policy discourse and bilingual language planning. Working

Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(2), 73-97.

Johnson, D. C. (2009a). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(1), 139-159.

235
Johnson, D. C. (2009b). The relationship between Applied linguistics research and language

policy for bilingual education . Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 72-93.

Johnson, D. C. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language

policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61-79. doi:

10.1080/13670050902780706

Johnson, D. C. (2011a). Critical discourse analysis and the ethnography of language policy.

Critical Discourse Studies, 8(4), 257-279.

Johnson, D. C. (2011b). Language policy discourse and bilingual language planning. Working

Papers in Educational Linguistics 19(2), 73-97.

Johnson, D. C. (2013a). Positioning the language policy arbiter: governmentality and footing in

the school district of Philadelphia. In J. W. Tollefosn (Ed.). Language policies in

education: critical issues (2nd ed , pp. 116-136). New York & London: Routledge.

Johnson, D.C. (2013b). Introduction: ethnography of language policy. International Journal of

Sociology of Language, 219, 23-46.

Johnson, D.C. (2013c). Language policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, D. C. (2015). Intertextuality and language policy. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.),

Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp.166-180).

Malden: Wiley Blackwell.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning; the

influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as second language.

Cognitive Psychology, 21(1) 60-99.

236
Johnson, S. (2005). Spelling trouble? Language, ideology and the reform of German

orthography. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Johnson, S., & Milani, T. M. (2010). Critical intersections: language ideologies and media

discourse. In S. Johnson & T. M. Milani (Eds.), Language ideologies and media

discourse (pp. 3- 22). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Johnson, S., & Milani, T. M. (Eds.) (2010). Language Ideologies and Media Discourse: Texts,

Practices, Politics. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage

Publications.

Jornal de Angola (2011, October 28). Lei das línguas de origem Africana define regras para a sua

utilização [The law for languages of African origin defines the rules of their use].

Retrieved from

htt://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/17/0/lei_das_linguas_de_origem_africana_definem_regras_p

ara_sua_utilizacao.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (1997). The colonial legacy and language planning in Sub-Saharan

Africa: the case of Zaire. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 69-85. Retrieved May 21, 2012,

from htt://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2000). A new language policy, old language practices: status planning

for African languages in multilingual South Africa. South African Journal of African

Languages, 20(1), 1-11.

237
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2004). The language policy/language economics interface and mother-

tongue education in post-apartheid South Africa. Language Problems & language

planning, 28(2), 131-146.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2008). Commentary from an African and international perspective. In

N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools save indigenous languages: policy and practice in

four continents (pp.136-151). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2009). Reflections on language policy balance sheet in Africa.

Language Matters: Studies in the Language of Africa, 40(2), 133-144. Retrieved May 8,

2012, from htt://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190903188567

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2010). Vernacularization, globalization, and language economics in

non-English speaking countries in Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning,

34(1), 1-23.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2011). Language planning approaches and methods. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (vol. 2, pp. 90-923).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2012). Effects of policy on English-medium instruction in Africa.

World Englishes, 32(3), 325-337.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2013). Language-in-education policy and planning in Africa’s

monolingual kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language

policies in education: critical issues (pp. 156-169). London & New York: Routledge.

238
Kamwendo, G. H. (2006). No easy walk to linguistic freedom: a critique of language planning

during South Africa’s first decade of democracy. Nordic Journal of African Studies

15(1), 53-70.

Kamwendo, G. H. (2009a). The SADC protocol on education and training: linguistic

implications and complications. Language Matters: Studies in the Language of Africa,

40(1), 4-17. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http;//dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190903086100

Kamwendo, G. H. (2009b). Trawling through language policy: practices and possibilities post-

1994. The Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 1-3.

Kaplan, R. (2011). Macro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed). Handbook of research in second

language teaching and learning (Vol. II., pp. 924-935). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning: from practice to theory. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Kaplan, R.B., & Baldauf, R.B (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning. In E. Hinkel

(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.1013-1034).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Karam, F. X. (1974). Toward a definition of language planning. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.),

Advances in language planning (pp. 103-123). Paris: Mouton de Hague.

Katupha, J. M.M. (1994). The language situation and language use in Mozambique. In R.

Fardon, & G. Furniss (Eds.), African languages, development and the state (pp. 89-96).

London: Routledge.

Keislar, E. R., & Stern, C. (1968). Improving language of young children: A progress report. In

E. Mzale (Ed.), Proceedings of the conference on language and language behavior (pp.

239
 299-321). University of Michigan: Center for Research on Language and Language

Behavior.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literary: core concepts, debates,

organizations, and policy. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 26(3),

369-386.

Kelly-holmes, H., Moriarty, M., & Pietikäinen, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence in

Basque, Irish and Sami media language policing. Language Policy, 8(3), 227-242.

Kim, M. (2012). Intertextuality and narrative practices of young deaf students in classroom

contexts” A microethnographic study. Reading Research Quarterly 47(4), 404-426.

doi:10.1002/RRQ.029.

Ki-Zerbo, J. (1990). Educate or Perish. International Bureau of Education, Paris: UNESCO.

Ki-Zerbo, J. (2005). African intellectuals’ nationalism and Pan-Africanism: a testimony. In T.

Mkandawire (Ed.), African intellectuals: rethinking politics, language, gender and

development (pp. 78-92). London & New York: Codesria Books.

Kloss, H. (1969). Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report, Centre de recherches sur

bilinguisme. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 037772)

Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: crosslinguistic constraints on second language

reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1-44.

Kohnert, K. (2008, February 12). Second language acquisition: success factors in sequential

bilingualism. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association | ASHA. Retrieved

August 2, 2012, from

http://www.asha.org/publications/leader/2008/080212/f080212a.htm

240
Kress, G. (1993). Against the arbitrariness: The social production of the sign as a foundational

issue in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 169-191.

Kress, G. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

Kristeva, J. (1981). Desire in language: a semiotic approach to literature and art. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Kroll, J. F. (1994). The consequences of bilingualism for mind and the brain. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 10(3/4), i-ii. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from

htt://psi.sagepub.com/doi:10.1177/1529100610389314.

Kroll, J. F. (2009). The consequences of bilingualism for mind and the brain. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 10(3/4), i-ii. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from

htt://psi.sagepub.com/doi:10.1177/1529100610389314.

Kroskrity, P. V. (2010). Language ideologies: evolving perspectives. In J. Jaspers, J. Ӧstman., &

J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and language use (pp. 192-211). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Krzyzanowski, M. (2011). Ethnography and critical discourse analysis: towards a problem-

oriented research dialogue. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(4), 231-238.

Küper, W. (2003a). Background and history: language politics and planning in Africa. In A.

Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimizing learning, education and publishing in Africa: the

language factor, a review and analysis of theory and practice in mother tongue and

bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 89-101). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO.

241
Küper, W. (2003b). The necessity of introducing mother tongue in education systems of

developing countries. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of education

(pp.89-101). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2008). Interviews: learning from the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laitin, D. D. (1992). Language repertoires and state construction in Africa.Cambridge;

Cambridge University Press.

Lambert, W. E. (1973). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. Annual

Learning Symposium on Cultural Factors in Learning (pp. 1-53). Bellinghan,

Washington: Western Washington State College.

Lanauze, M., & Snow, C. E. (1989). The relation between first and second language skills:

evidence from Puerto Rican elementary school children in bilingual programs.

Linguistics and Education, 1(4), 323-339.

Lankshear, C. & McLaren, P. (1993). Critical literacy: politics, praxis, and the postmodern.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Lareau, A. (1989). Common problems in field work: a personal essay. In C. F. Conrad, J. G.

Howorth, & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.). Qualitative research in higher education: expanding

perspectives (second edition, pp. 369- 394). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

242
Lasagabaster, D., & Huguet, A. (2007). Introduction: a transnational study in European bilingual

contexts. In D. Lasagabaster, & A. Huguet (Eds.), Multilingualism in European bilingual

contexts: language use and attitudes (pp.1- 6). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lemke, J. K. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome

(Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classrooms and educational research (pp. 3-16).

Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics: discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.

Leonardo, Z. (2003). Ideology, discourse, and school reform. Westport, Connecticut:

PRAEGER.

Levinson, B. A., & Sutton, M. (Eds.). (2001). Policy as practice: toward a sociocultural analysis

of educational policy. London: Ablex Publishing.

Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2014). Ethnologue: languages of the

World,(Seventeenth edition). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved November, 26,

2013 from htt://www.ethnologue.com.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2005). Corpus planning: Syllabus and material development. In E. Hinkel (Ed).

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. I., pp. 993-1011).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2007). Language planning for literacy: issues and implications. In A. J.

Liddicoat (Ed.), Language planning and policy: issues in language planning and literacy

(pp. 13-29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

243
Liddicoat, A. J. (2008). The ecological impact of a dictionary. In A. J. Liddicoat, & R. B.

Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy: language planning in local contexts (pp.

113-119). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Liddicoat, A.J. (2005). Corpus planning: syllabus and materials development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),

Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.993-1011).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Liddiocoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (Eds.) (2008). Language planning and policy: language

planning in local contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual

language education programs. San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B.C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: language, ideology, and discrimination in the

United States. London & New York: Routledge.

Lo Bianco, J. (2004). Language planning as applied linguistics. In A. Davies, & C. Elder (Eds.),

Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 738-762). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Lodhi, A. Y. (1993). The language situation in Africa today. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 2

(1), 79-86.

Lopes, A. (1998). The language situation in Mozambique. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 19(5), 440-486.

244
Lopes, A. J. (2004). The language situation in Mozambique. In R. B. Baldauf, & R. B. Kaplan

(Eds.), Language planning and policy in Africa: Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and

South Africa (Vol. 1, pp. 150-196). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Loureiro-Rodriguez, V., Boggess, M. M., & Goldsmith, A. (2013). Language attitudes in

Galicia: using the matched-guise test among high school students. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(2), 136-153.

Love, P. (2003). Document analysis. In F. K. Stage., & K. Manning (Eds.), Research in the

college context: approaches and methods (pp. 83- 95). New York & Hove: Brunner-

Routledge.

Luk, G., De Sa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relationship between onset age bilingualism

and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(4),

588-595.

Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to critical discourse analysis.

Review of Research in education, 21, 3-48. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167278

Luke, A., & Dooley, K. (2011). Critical literacy and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.)

Handbook of research in Second Language teaching and learning (pp. 856-867). New

York & London: Routledge.

Lusakalalu, P. (2007). Media, education and count of Namibian languages. Journal of Namibian

Studies 2, 85-101.

Lynch, S. (1991). Untangling the bilingual education controversy. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia,

25-27, 215-226.

245
Lyotar, F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Madumulla, J., Bertoncini, E., & Blommaert, J. (1999). Politics, ideology and poetic form: the

literary debate in Tanzania. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp.

307-337). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Makoni, S. (2011). Sociolinguistics, colonial and postcolonial: an integrationist perspective.

Language Science, 33, 680-688.

Makoni, S. B. (2012). Language and human rights discourses in Africa: lessons from the

African experience. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 1-20.

Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2005). Disiventing and (re) constituting languages. Critical

Inquiry in Language Studies: An International Journal, 2(3), 137-156.

Mansour, G. (1993). Multilingualism and nation-building. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Marinova-Todd, S. M., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C.E. (2000). Three misconceptions about age

and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 9-34.

Marshall, J. D. (2004). Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy. New York, NY: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.

Martin, D. (1997). Towards a new multilingual language policy in education in South Africa:

different approaches to meet different needs. Educational Review, 49(2), 129-139. doi:

10.1080/0013191970490204

Martin-Jones, M., & Jones, K. (2000). Multilingual literacies. In M. Martin-Jones, & K. Jones

(Eds). Multilingual literacies: reading and writing different worlds (pp. 1-15).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

246
Massini-Cagliari, G. (2004). Language policy in Brazil: monolingulaism and linguistic

prejudice. Language Policy, 3(1), 3-24.

Massini-Cagliari, G. (2006). One language among many, many languages in one:

monolingualism, linguistic prejudice and language policy in Brazil. Revista ANPOLL, 20

(1), 63-84.

Mateus, I. (2009, Dezembro, 23). A Constituição e as línguas nacionais [The future Constitution

and the national languages]. Retrieved from

http://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/19/46/a_futura_constituicao_e_as_linguas_nacionais

Matsinhe, S. F. (2013). African languages as a viable factor in Africa’s quest for integration and

development: the view from ACALAN. In H. McLLWraith (Ed.), Multilingual education

in Africa: lessons from the Juba language –in-education conference (pp. 23-35). London:

British Council.

May, S. (2005). Language Rights: moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3),

319-347. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from

www.bib.uab.ls/socials/exposicionsdretllengua/docs/may.pdf

May, S. (2012). Contesting hegemonic and monolithic constructions of language rights

discourse. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(1), 21-27.

Mazrui, A. M. (1996). Language policy and the foundations of democracy: an African

perspective. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 118, 107-124.

Mazrui, A. M. (2000). The World Bank, the language and the future of African education. In S.

Federici, G. Caffentzis, & O. Alidou (Eds.), A thousands flowers: social struggles against

247
 structural adjustment in African universities (pp. 43-59). Trenton, NJ: Africa World

Press.

Mazrui, A. M. (2002). The English language in African education: dependency and

decolonization. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: critical issues (pp.

267-281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mazrui, A. M. (2004). English in Africa after the cold war. Clevedon: Multilingual Matter.

McCarthy, T. L. (2004). Dangerous difference: a critical-historical analysis of language

education policies in the Unites States. In J. W. Tollefson, & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.).

Medium of instruction policies: which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 71-94). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCarthy, T. L. (2011). Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.

McCarthy, T. L. (Ed). (2005). Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCarty, T. L. (2003). Revitalizing indigenous languages in homogenizing times. Comparative

Education, 39(2), 147-163.

McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation and standards. In S. L. McKay, & N. H.

Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp.3-40). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McGroarty, M. (2008). The linguistic matrix of linguistic ideologies. In S. Bernard, & F. M. Hult

(Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 98-112). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.

248
McGroarty, M. (2013). Multiple actors and arenas in evolving language policies. In J. W.

Tollefosn (Ed.). Language policies in education: critical issues (2nd ed , pp. 35-58). New

York & London: Routledge.

McKay, S. (2011). Language and the media. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of

sociolinguistcs (pp.396-412). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: what every

teacher needs to unlearn. Educational Practice Report, Washington, DC. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED 352806)

Mears, C.L. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research: the gateway

approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Meganatahan, R. (2011). Language policy in education and the role of English in India: From

library language to language of empowerment. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Dreams and

realities: developing countries and the English language (pp. 59-87). London: The

British Council.

Menken, K., & Garcia, O. (Eds). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as

policy makers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mesthrie, R. (2006). Language, transformation and development: a sociolinguistic appraisal of

post-apartheid South African language policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics

and Applied Linguistics Studies, 24(2), 151-163.

Mesthrie, R. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

249
Milani, T., & Johnson, S. (2010). Critical intersections: language ideologies and media

discourse. In S. Johnson, & T. M. Milani (Eds.), Language ideologies and media

discourse: texts, practices, politics (pp.3-14). London & New York: Continuum

Publishing Company.

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (3rd ed.)

London: Routledge.

Moita-Lopes, L. P. (Ed.). (2015). Global Portuguese: Linguistic ideologies in late modernity.

New York, NY: Routeledge.

Montecel, M. R., & Cortez, J. D. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development

and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in

bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1).

Montecel, M. R., & Danini, J. (2002). Successful bilingual education programs: Development

and the dissemination of criteria to identify promising and exemplary practices in

bilingual education at the national level. Bilingual Research Journal: the Journal of the

National Association for Bilingual Education, 26(1), 1-21.

doi:10.1080/15235882.2002.10668696

Mooko, T. (2009). Language policy and practice in the southern African development

community. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(2), 166-180. Retrieved May 2,

2012, from www,tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/146642000802399141

Morais, K.V. (2010). Negotiating linguistic diversity in world Englishes and Portugueses.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Arizona, Tucson.

250
Morales, J., Calvo, A., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Working memory development in monolingual

and bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 187-202.

Moses, M. (2007). The media as educators: educational research, and autonomous deliberation.

Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 150-165.

Mukhuba, T. T. (2003). Bilingualism, language attitudes, language policy and language

planning:A sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 268-278.

Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate

attainment. Language Teaching, 44(1), 1-35. doi:10.1017/SO26144810000327.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple voices: an introduction to bilingualism. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Naidoo, J. (2005). Education decentralization in Africa: great expectations and unfulfilled

promises. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in education policy.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: report of the national early

literacy panel. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/ref/NELReprt09.pdf

Ndhlovu, F. (2013). Cross-border language in Southern African economic and political

integration. African Studies, 72(1), 19-40. doi: 10.1080/00020184.2013.776196

Neto, A. A. (1977). Ainda no meu sonho [In my dreams]. Luanda: União dos Escritores

Angolanos(UEA).

Neustupný, J. (1974). Basic types of treatment of language problems. In A. J. Fishman,(Ed.). Advances

in language planning (pp. 37-48). The Hague: Mouton.

251
Nieto, S. (1995). Affirming diversity: the sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center: some thoughts on transforming teacher

education or a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180-187.

Nöth, W. (1998). Semiotics of ideology. Semiotica, 148(1/4), 11-21.

Nyati-Ramahobo, L. (2006). The long road to multilingual schools in Botswana. In O. García., T.

Skutnabb-Kangas, & M. E. Torres-Guzmán (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools:

languages in education and glocalization (pp. 200-219). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Nzau, D. G.N. (2011). A língua Portuguesa em Angola:um contributo para o estudo da sua

nacionalização [The Portuguese language in Angola: a contribution for the study of its

nacionalization]. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Universidade da Beira Interior,

Covilhã, Portugal. Retrieved from

http://www.adelinotorres.com/teses/domigos_ndele_nzau.pdf

Obanya, P. (1995). Popular fallacies on the use of African languages in education. Dynamics,

25(1), 81-100. doi:1080/02533959908458663.

Obanya, P. (2003). The place of language literacy and basic education programs: an overview. In

A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of education (pp.121-127). Hamburg,

Germany: UNESCO.

Obeng, S.G., & Adegbija, E. (1999). Sub-Saharan Africa. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of

language and ethnic identity (pp.353-368). Oxford & New York: Oxford University

Press.

252
Obondo, A. M. (2008). Bilingual education in Africa: an overview. In J. Cummins, & N.H.

Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 151-

161). New York: Springer Science Media LLC.

Olson, D. R. (2005). Shaping literacy policy: from abstract ideals to accountable practices. In N.

Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood,. & D. Livingstone, (Eds.).

International handbook of educational policy (pp. 779-791). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Springer.

Omoniyi, T. (2007). Alternatives contexts of language policy and planning in Sub-Saharan

Africa. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 533-549. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from

wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00084.x

Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. G., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to learing in

professional development and change: a national study of teachers in England. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 27, 441-453.

Orekan, G. (2011). Mother tongue medium as an efficient way of challenging educational

disadvantages in Africa: The case of Nigeria. Scottish Language Review, 23, 27-38.

Orman, J. (2008). Language policy and nation building in post-apartheid South Africa.

Amsterdam: Springer

Oswell, D. (2006). Culture and society. London: Sage Publications

Ouane, A. (2003a). Contributions to and structure of the book. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a

multilingual culture of education (pp.15-21). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO

253
Ouane, A. (2003b). By way of conclusion: the normality of multilingualism and its political and

educational implications. In A. Ouane (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture of education

(pp.249-258). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO

Ouane, A. (2003c). Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO

Ouane, A., & Glanz, C. (2010). Why and how Africa should invest in African languages and

multilingualism. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED540509)

Ouane, A., & Glanz, C. (2011). Optimizing learning, education and publishing: The language

factor. Paris: UNESCO

Ovando, M. N., & Casey, P. (2010). Instructional leadership to enhance alternatively certified

novice bilingual teacher’s capacity. Scholar Practitioner Quarterly, 4(2), 144-168.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ942513)

Palmer, D., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: a French look at

preparing teachers to educate latino/bilingual children. Review of Research in Education,

37(1), 268-297. doi:10.3102/0091732X12463556

Paradis, J. (2007). Early bilingual and multilingual acquisition. In P. Auer, & L. Wei (Eds.),

Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 15-44). Berlin & New

York: Mouton de Gruyter

Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in second language.

Language Learning, 30(2), 449-472. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00328.x/abstract

254
Patrinos, H. A., & Velez, E. (2009). Costs and benefits of bilingual education in Guatemala: a

partial analysis. International Journal Educational Development, 29(6), 594-598.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles &

London: Sage

Pavlenko, A. (2001). Bilingualism, gender, and ideology. International Journal of Bilingualism,

5(2), 151-117.

Pavlenko, A. (2008). Emotion and emotion-laden words in the bilingual lexicon. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition, 11(2), 147-164.

Pease-Alvarez, L., & Hakuta, K. (1992). Our views of bilingualism and bilingual education.

Educational Researcher, 21(2), 4-19. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from

htt://www.jstor.org/stable/1176572

Pennycook, A. (2000). Language, ideology and hindsight: lessons from colonial language

policies. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: focus on English

(pp.49-65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing

Pennycook, A. (2002). Mother Tongue: governmentality and Protectionism. International

Journal of Sociology of Language, 154(154), 11-28.

Pennycook, A. (2004). Language policy and the ecology turn. Language Policy, 3, 213-239.

Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction

to language policy: theory and method (pp. 60-76). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pennycook, A. (2012). Language and mobility: Unexpected places. Bristol: Multilingual Matters

255
Pérez, B. (2004). Becoming biliterate: a study of two-way bilingual immersion education.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Perez, S.J. (2009). The contribution of post-colonial theory to intercultural bilingual education in

Peru: an indigenous teacher training program. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas., R. Phillipson.,

A.K. Mohanty, & P. Minaty (Eds.), Social justice through multilingual education (pp.

201- 219). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity: one’s own. Educational researcher, 17(7), 17-21.

Peters, M. A., & Burbules, N. C. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. Lanham &

New York: Rowman-Littlefield

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pluddemann, P. (1999). Multilingualism and education in South Africa: one year on.

International Journal of Educational Research, 31(4), 327-340.

Porter, R. P. (1990a). Forked tongue: the politics of bilingual education. New York, NY: Basic

Books

Porter, R. P. (1990b). The Rugelberg lecture: brain mechanism of voluntary motor commands: A

review. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 76,282-293.

Poulantzas, N. (2000). State power and socialism. London: Verso

Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialysitok, E. (2011). The effects of bilingualism on

toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 567-

579.

Prah, K. (2000). The Language of instruction conundrum in Africa. Institute for Educational

Research, 8(6), 1-17.

256
Pütz, M. (1995). Attitudes and language: an empirical investigation into the status and use of

English in Namibia. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Discrimination through language in Africa?

Perspectives on the Namibian Experience (pp. 245-284). Berlin & New York: Mouton de

Gruyter

Quirk, R., Sidney, G., Leech, G & Svartvik, J. (1989). A grammar of contemporary English.

London: Routledge

Ramirez, J. D., & Merino, B. (1990). Classrooms talk in English immersion, early exit and late

exit transitional bilingual education programs. In R. Jacobson & Faltis, C. (Eds.),

Language distribution issues in bilingual schooling (pp. 61-103). Clevedon, Avon:

Multilingual Matters.

Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English

immersion strategy early exit and late exit transitional bilingual education programs for

language-minority chidrenn. Sn Mateo, CA: Aguire International.

Rasool, N. (2007). Global issues in language, education and development: perspectives from

post-colonial countries. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Reed, I. A. (2011). Interpretations and social knowledge: on the use of theory in human sciences.

Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press

Ricento, T. (2010). Language policy and globalization. In N. Coupland (Ed.) Handbook of

globalization (pp. 123-141). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell

Ricento, T. (2012). Political economy and English as a global language. Critical Multilingualism

Studies, 1(1), 31-56.

257
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: language planning and policy

and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427.

Riley, K. C. (2012). Language socialization and language ideologies. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, &

B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (2nd ed., pp.493-510).

Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell

Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Lavia, J. (2006). Postcolonialism and education: negotiating a contested

terrain. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 14(3), 249-262.

Roberts, C. A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding.

The Bilngual Education Journal, 19(3&4), 369-378.

Rogers, R.., Malacharuvil-Berkes., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical

discourse analysis in education: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research,

75(3), 365-416.

Romaine, S. (2002). The language of language policy on endangered languages. International

Journal on Multicultural Societies, 4(2), 1-28. Retrieved from,

http://www.unesco.org/most/vl4n2romaine.pdf

Romaine, S. (2006). Language policy in multilingual educational contexts. In K. Brown (Ed.),

Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Elsevier, 584-596.

Rosenshine, B. V. (1979). Content, time, and direct and indirect instruction. In H. Walberg & P.

Peterson (Eds.), Research on teaching: concepts, findings, and implication (pp. 116-123).

Bekerley, CA: McCutenan Publishing Company.

Rossell, C. H., & Baker, K. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education.

Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74.

258
Roy-Campbell (2001). Empowerment through language: the African experience- Tanzania and

beyond. Trenton, Africa World Press

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I. S. (2006). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearting data (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Rubin, J., & Jernudd, B. (1971). Language policy, language engineering and literacy in Indonesia

and Malaysia, In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics, 8, 1087-1109.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8 (2), 15-34

Saha, L. (Ed.) (1997). International encyclopedia of sociology of education. Queensland:

Elsevier Science Ltd

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, London: SAGE

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles,

London: SAGE

Sapir, E. (1931). The function of an international language. In H.N. Shenton, E. Sapir, & O.

Jespersen (Eds.), International communication: A symposium on the language problem

(pp. 65-94). London: Kegan Paul

Sauer, C. (1997). Echoes from abroad-speeches for the domestic audience: Queen Beatrix’

address to the Israeli parliament. In C. Schӓffner (Ed.), Analyzing political speeches (pp.

33-67), Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

259
Saville-Troike, M. (1991). Teaching and testing for academic achievement: the role of language

development. Focus Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, Washington, DC

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED337035)

Schiefflelin, B. B., Woolard., & Kroskrity, P. V. (1998). Language ideologies: practice and

theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schiffman, H. F. (1992). Resisting arrest in status planning: structural and covert impediments to

status change. Language & Communication, 12(1), 1-15.

Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. London & New York:

Routledge

Schiffrin, D. (2004). Discourse analysis and conversation analysis. In H. v. Ulrich, Ammon, N.

Dittmar., K.J. Mattheier & P. Trudgill (Eds.). An international handbook of the science

of language and society (pp. 88-99). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter

Schoel, C., Roessel, J., Eck, J., Janssen, J., Petrovic, B., Rothe, A., Rudert, S. C., & Stahlberg, D.

(2013). Attitudes towards languages (AToL) scale: a global instrument. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 21-45.

Schӓffner, C. (1996). Introduction. In C. Schaffner & H. Kelly-Holmes (Ed.), Discourse and

ideologies (pp. 1-6). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Schӓffner, C. (1997). Analyzing political speeches. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Schӓffner, C. (1997). Analyzing political speeches. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Schӓffner, C., & Kelly-Holmes, H. (1996). Discourse and ideologies. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters

260
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: a discourse approach. (2nd

edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers

Scrivener, S.M. (2009). The relationship between student achievement and teachers attitudes: a

correlational study. (Doctoral dissertation) retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses Database. (3351416)

Sebba, M. (2006). Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR. Language Problems and

Planning, 30(2), 99-127.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as a qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education

and the social sciences (3rd ed), New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education

and social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Semali, L. (1999). Community as classroom: dilemmas of valuing African indigenous literacy in

education. International Review of Education, 45(3/4), 305-319.

Serageant, P. (2007). Language ideology, language theory, and the regulation of linguistic

behavior. Language Sciences, 31, 345-359.

Serratrice, L. (2013). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook

of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 87-108). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd.

Sevinç, M., & Önkol, F. L. (2009). Language processing skills of 5-6 years old Turkish children

attending monolingual and bilingual preschool education. Procedia Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1378-1383. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.243.

261
Shanahan, E. A., McBeth, M. K., Hathaway, P. L., & Arnell, R. J. (2008). Conduit or

contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sciences, 41(2), 115-138.

Shoba, J. A. (2013). The formation of language values and educational language policy beliefs

among teachers in Ghana: A life history approach. In J. A. Shoba & F. Chimbutane

(Eds.), Bilingual education and language policy in the global South (pp. 30-48). New

York & London: Routledge

Shoba, J. A., & Chimbutane, F. (2013). Introduction: Ideological and implementational spaces

for multilingual education policy and practice in the global south. In J. A. Shoba & F.

Chimbutane (Eds.), Bilingual education and language policy in the global South (pp. 1-

10). New York, NY: Routledge

Shoba, J. A., & Chimbutane, F. (Eds.). (2013). Bilingual education and language policy in the

global South. New York, NY: Routledge

Shohamy, E. (2006). Imagined multilingual schools: how come we don’t deliver? In O. Garcia &

T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: language in education and

globalization (pp. 171-183). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Shohamy, E., & Gorter, D. (Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expandind the scenery. New

York & London: Routledge

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1997). Anthropology of policy: critical perspectives on

governance and power. New York, NY: Routledge

Shore, C., Wright, S., & Pero, D. (Eds.). (2011). Policy worlds: anthropology and the analysis

of contemporary power. New York, NY: Bergham Books

262
Siapera, E. (2010). Cultural diversity and global media: the mediation of difference. London:

Wiley-Blackwell

Silva, R. (2011, Junho 01). Ensino das línguas africanas contribui para o êxitos escolar [The

study of African languages contributes to school achievement]. Retrieved from

http://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/17/35/ensino_das_linguas_africanas_contribui-

_para_o_exito_escolar

Silverstein, M. (1998). Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual

Review of Anthropology, 27, 401-426.

Silverstein, M. (2000). Whorfianism and the linguistic imagination of nationality. In P. V.

Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language, ideologies, politics, and identities (pp. 85-138).

Santa-Fé, NM: School of American Research Press

Simão, M. (2012, May 05). Aplicação do acordo ortográfico carece de correções ao document [

The implementation of the accord requires corrections to the document]. Retrieved from

http:// jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/20/0/aplicacao_do-acordo_ortografico_carece_de_

correcoes_ao_ document.

Simon-Cereijido, G., & Guttierrez-Clellen, V. (2009). A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation

of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 30, 315-337.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008). Language rights and bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N.H.

Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 117-

131). New York: Springer Science Media LLC.

263
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2009). Multilingual education for global justice: issues, approaches,

opportunities. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas., R. Phillipson., A.K. Mohanty & P. Minaty (Eds.),

Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 36-52). Bristol, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Language rights. In J. Jaspers, J. Ӧstman., & J. Verschueren (Eds.),

Society and language use (pp. 212-232). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1996). English only worldwide or language ecology.

TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429-452.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (2008). A Human rights perspective on language ecology.

In A. Creese, P. Martin., & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and

education (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 3-14). New York: Springer Science Media LLC.

Slembrouck, S. (2001). Explanation, interpretation and articulation in the analysis of discourse.

Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 33-57.

Smithson, L., Paradis, J., & Nicoladis, E. (2014). Bilingualism and receptive vocabulary

achievement: Could sociocultural context make a difference? Bilingualism: language and

Cognition, 1-12.

Snow, C. (2014). Putting children’s learning in context. Harvard University: Center on the

Developing Child. Retrieved from

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/faculty_and_staff/faculty/faculty_spotlights/faculty_s

potlight__catherine_snow/

264
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). Critical period language acquisition: evidence from

second language learning. Child Development, 49(4), 1114-1128.

Spencer, J.W. (1974). Colonial language policies in Sub-Saharan Africa. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.),

Advances in language planning (pp. 165-172). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.

Spener, D. (1988). Transitional bilingual education and the socialization of immigrants. Harvard

Educational Review, 58(2), 133-153.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Spolsky, B. (2008). Riding the tiger. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Can schools save indigenous

languages: policy and practice in four continents (pp.152-160). New York, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan

Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (2000). Language practice, language ideology and language policy.

In R. D. Lambert & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: essays in honor

of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1-36). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.

Spolsky, B., Inbar-Lourie, O., & Tannenbaun, M. (Eds.). (2015). Challenges for language

education and policy: Making space for people. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), SAGE

handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stein, S. J. (2004). The culture of education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B.V. (2001). Literacy events and literacy practices in multilingual literacies: comparative

perspectives on research and practice. In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.),

265
 Multilingual literacies: reading and writing different worlds (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam:

John Benjamin

Stroud, C. (1999). Portuguese as ideology and politics in Mozambique: Semiotic (re)construction

of postcolony. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 343-380).

Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter

Stroud, C. (2001). African mother-tongue programs and the politics of language: linguistic

citizenship versus linguistic human rights. International Journal of Educational

Development, 22(4), 339-335.

Stroud, C. (2002). Towards a policy for bilingual education in developing countries. Stockholm,

Sweden: Education Division at Sida, Department for Democracy and Social

Development.

Stroud, C. (2003). Postmodernist perspectives on local languages: African mother-tongue

education in times of globalization. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 6(1), 17-36.

Stroud, C. (2007a). Bilingualism: colonialism and postcolonialism. In M. Heller (Ed.),

Bilingualism: a social approach (pp. 25-49). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stroud, C. (2007b). Multilingualism in ex-colonial countries. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.),

Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 509-537). Berlin,

Germany: Mouton de Gruyter

Stroud, C., & Heugh, K. (2011). Language in education. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The handbook of

sociolinguistics (pp.413-429). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Backwell.

266
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA).

British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 12, 100-116.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate: a

step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371-391.

Tadadjeu, M. (2004). Language, literacy and education in African development: a perspective

from Cameroon. SIL International, 1-10.

Taylor, L. K., Benhard, J. K., Garg, S., & Cummins, J. (2008). Affirming plural belonging:

building on students’ family-based cultural and linguistic capital through multiliteracies

pedagogy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3), 269-284.

Taylor, M., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., & Kinsella, P. (2011). Teacher professional leadership in

support of teacher professional development. Teacher and Teacher Education, 37, 84-94.

Taylor, S. G. (2002). Multilingual societies and planned linguistic change: new language-in-

education programs in Estonia and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 46(3),

313-338. Retrieved April 24, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/341160

Téllez, K., & Varghese, M. (2013). Teachers as intellectuals and advocates: professional

development for bilingual education teachers. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 128-135.

Thibault, P. J. (1991). Social semiotics as praxis: text, social meaning making. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language

minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education,

and Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved from

http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_funal.html.

267
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1997, December 9). School effectiveness for language

minority students. www.thomasandcollier.com. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from

http://www.thomasandcollier.com/Downloads/1997_Thomas-Collier97.pdf

Thomason, S.G. (2001). Language contact. Endinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

Thompson, J.B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: critical social theory in the era of mass

communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Thompson, K., & Hakuta, K. (2012). Education and bilingualism. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford

(Eds.), The routledge handbook of discourse analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

Tokuhama-Espinoza, T. (2008). Living languages: multilingualism across life span. Westport,

CT: Praeger Publishers.

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the

community. London: Longman.

Tollefson, J. W. (2002). Language policies in education: critical issues. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction

to language policy: theory and method (pp. 42-59). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Tollefson, J. W. (2011). Language and language policy. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The cambridge

handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 357-376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tollefson, J.W. (2013). Language policy and democratic pluralism. In J. W. Tollefosn (Ed.).

Language policies in education: critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 301-310). New York, NY:

Routledge

268
Tong, F., Irby, B., Lara-Alecio, R., & Mathes, P. (2008). English and Spanish acquisition by

hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal

randomized study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, 500-529. Retrieved June

29, 2012, from htt://hjb.sagepub.com/content/30/4/500

Torfing, J. (1999). New theories of discourse: Laclau, Mouffe, and Zizek. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: collecting evidence, crafting analysis,

communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell

Troyna, B. (1994). Critical social research and education policy. British Journal of Educational

Studies, 42(1), 70-84.

Trudell, B. (2005). Language, choice, education and community identity. International Journal

of Educational Development, 25(3), 237-251.

Trudell, B. (2007). Local community perspectives and language of education in sub-Saharan

Africa communities. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(5), 552-563.

Retrieved May 2, 2012, from

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0738059307000156

Trudell, B. (2009). Local-language literacy and sustainable development in Africa. International

Journal of Educational development, 29(1), 73-79.

Trudell, B. (2010). Language, culture, development and politics: dimensions of local agency in

language development in Africa. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

31(4), 403-419. Retrieved May 3l, 2012, from

www,tandfonline.com/dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.497216

269
Trueba, H. T. (1985). Bilingualism and bilingual education. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 6, 47-64.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2004). The centrality of medium of instruction policy in

sociopolitical processes. In J. W. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.). Medium of

instruction policies: which agenda? Whose agenda? (pp. 1-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates

Tucker, R. G. (1996). Some thoughts concerning innovative language education programs.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2/4), 315-320.

Tucker, R. G. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J.

Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: multilingualism and multilingual

education (pp. 3-32). Clevedon, MA: Multilingual Matters

Tucker, R. G. (1999). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. Washington,

DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED435168)

UNESCO (1953). The use of vernaculars languages in education. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO (2011). Planner’s guide for the introduction of African languages and cultures in the

education system. Dakar, Senegal: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in Africa.

Unger, J.W. (2012). Using critical discourse studies to investigate language policy and attitudes.

Retrieved from http://prezi.com/jkheirbab20i/using-critical-discourse-studies-to-

investigate-language-policy-and-attitudes/#share_embed

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: practice of theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press

270
Valdiviezo, L. A. (2013). Vertical and horizontal approaches to ethnography of language policy

in Peru. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 219, 23-46.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1982). Opinions and attitudes in discourse comprehension. Language and

Comprehension, 9, 35-51.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourses, opinions and ideologies. In C. Schaffner & H. Kelly-Holmes

(Ed.), Discourse and ideologies (pp. 7-37). Clevedon, MA : Multilingual Matters.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. Barcelona, Spain: Elsevier.

Van Ells, T. (2005). Status planning for learning and teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed). Handbook of

research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. I., pp. 971-991). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Van Lier, L. (2004). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C.

Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 140-164). London:

Continuum

Varcasia, C. (Ed.) (2011). Becoming multilingual: language learning and language policy

between attitudes and identities. Berne, Germany: Peter Lang

Velázquez, I. (2013). Individual discourse, language ideology and Spanish transmission in El

Paso, Texas. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(3), 245-265.

Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: the linguistic interdependence

hypothesis revisted. Language Learning, 44(3), 381-415. Retrieved May 12, 2012, from

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01112.x/abstract

271
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional

learning communities on teaching and student learning. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 24, 80-91.

Vilela, M. (2002). Reflections on Language Policy in African Countries with Portuguese as an

Official Language. Current Issues in Language Planning, 3(3), 306-316.

Vološinov, V, N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. M & I. R. Titunik,

Trans.). New York & London: Seminar Press

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Liams, M. (2004). Not in my classroom: teacher attitudes towards

English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and

Practice, 2(1), 130-160.

Wallerstein, I. (1990). Culture as the ideological battleground of the modern world-system. In M.

Hatherstone (Ed.), Global culture: nationalism, globalization, and modernity (pp. 31-55).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Walter, S. L. (2008). The language of instruction issue: Framing an empirical perspective. In B.

Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 129-146).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell

Publishing

Warren, M. (2013). “Just spoke to …”: Types and directionality of intertextuality in professional

discourse. English for Specific Purposes 32, 12-24. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2012.07.001.

272
Warriner, D. S. (2011). Literacy. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The routledge handbook of applied

linguistics (pp. 529-540). London: Routledge

Watson, K. (2007). Language, education and ethnicity: whose rights will prevail in an age of

globalization? International Journal of Educational development, 27(3), 252-265.

Wa-Zani (2012, February, 19). Retificar antes de ratificar e reflectir antes de agir [Rectify before

ratifying and reflect before acting]. Retrieved from http://

jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/cultura/livros/rectificar_antes_de-

ratificar_e_reflectir_antes_de_agir.

Webb, V. (2009). Multilingualism in South Africa: the challenge to below. Language Matters:

Studies in the Language of Africa, 40(2), 190-204. Retrieved May 24, 2012, from

htt://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10228190903188591.

Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional

specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual

speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(3), 231-256.

Wee, L. (2011). Language without rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wei, L. (2001). Competing forces in language maintenance and shift: markets, hierarchies and

networks in Singapore. Estudios de linguistica aplicada, 19(34), 13-28.

Wei, L. (2008). Research perspectives on bilingualism and multilingualism. In L. Wei., & M. G.

Moyer (Eds.), The blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and

multilingualism (pp. 3-17). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

273
Wei, L. (2013). Conceptual and methodological issues in bilingual and multilingual research. In

T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism

(2nd ed., pp. 26-51). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview

studies. New York, NY: The Free Press

Wenglinsky, H. (2001). Teacher classroom practices and student performance: how schools can

make a difference. Research report: educational testing services. Retrieved January 25,

2014, from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-01-19-Wenglinsky.pdf

Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about reading and writing difficulties?

Victoria: ACER Press.

Whitcare, M., Diaz, Z., & Esquierdo, J. (2013). Pre-service teachers: an analysis of reading

instruction in high needs district dual language classrooms. International Journal of

instruction, 6(1), 5-20.

Whiting, L.S. (2008). Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researcher. Nursing

Standards, 22(23), 35-40.

Widdowson, H.G. (2001). The monolingual teaching and bilingual learning. In R. L. Cooper, E.

Shohamy & J. Walters (Eds.). New perspectives and issues in educational language

policy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wiley, T. G. (1996). Language and language policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp.103-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

274
Wiley, T. G. (2005). The reemergence of heritage and community language policy in the U.S

national spotlight. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 594-601.

Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-Only and standards English ideologies in the U.S.

TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511-535.

Willig, A. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education.

American Educational Research Association, 55(3), 269-317. Retrieved June 30, 2012,

from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/1170389

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (2nd ed.). Berkshire, England:

Open University Press.

Wodak, R. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications

Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in

CDA. Discourse Studies, 8, 179-190.

Wodak, R. (2011). Complex texts: analyzing, understanding, explaining and interpreting

meanings. Discourse Studies, 13, 623-633.

Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education policies: the

case for Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 19-40.

Wodak, R., & Krzyżanowski, M. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the social

sciences. New York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles:

Sage.

Wolff, E. H. (2000). Pre-school child multilingualism and its educational implications in the

African context: PRAESA occasional papers. Cape Town: PRAESA.

275
Wolff, E. H. (2006). Background and history: Language politics and planning in Africa. In H.

Alidou, A. Boly, B. Brock-Utne, Y. S. Diallo, K. Heugh & H. E. Wolff (Eds.),

Optimizing learning in Africa-the language factor: a stock-taking research on moter

tongue and bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 26-55). Libreville, Gabon:

ADEA/UNESCO Institute for Education.

Wolff, E. H. (2011). Background and history: language politics and planning in Africa. In A.

Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimizing learning, education and publishing in Africa: the

language factor, a review and analysis of theory and practice in mother tongue and

bilingual education in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 49-94). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO

Institute of Lifelong Learning/ ADEA

Woolard, K. (1992). Language ideology: issues and approaches. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235-249.

Woolard, K. A. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23, 55-82.

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: language ideology as field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin.,

K. A. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideology: practice and theory (pp. 3-

33). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

World Bank (2005). In their own language: Education for All. Education Notes

Wortham, S. (1996). Mapping deitics: a technique for discovering teachers footing. Journal of

Pragmatics, 25(3), 331-348.

Wortham, S. (2001). Language ideology and educational research. Linguistics and Education,

12(2), 253-259.

276
Wortham, S. (2008). Linguistic anthropology of education. In M. Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia

& N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp.

93-103). Amsterdam: Springer Science Business Media LLC.

Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: from nationalism to globalization.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wright, W.E. (2005). Language policy issues reported in the U.S. press. In J. Cohen, K. T.

McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international

symposium on bilingualism (pp. 2369-2384). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Wu, J.G. (2012). Studies in interdiscursivity. Sino-US English Teaching 9(7),1312-12-17.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications

Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative interpretive methods in policy research. In, F. Fischer, G. J.

Miller., & M. S. Sidney (Eds.). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and

methods. (pp. 405-416). Boca Raton, London: CRC Press.

Yanow, D. (2011). A policy ethnographer’s reading of policy anthropology. In C. Shore., S.

Wright., & D. Pero (Eds.), Policy worlds: anthropology and the analysis of

contemporary power (pp. 300-313). New York, NY: Bergham Books.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretations and method: empirical research

methods and the interpretive turn. New York, London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research: from starts to finish. New York & London: The

Guilford Press.

277
Youngs, P. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670. doi:

10.1177/00113161X02239642

Zajda, J. (2005). Globalization, education and policy: Changing paradigms. In J. Zajda (Ed.),

International handbook on globalization, education and policy research: Global

pedagogies and policies (pp. 1-22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Zajda, J. (2010). Globalization, social and cultural change and education reforms. In J. Zajda

(Ed.), Globalization, ideology and education policy reforms (pp. xiii-xvii). Dordrecht,

The Netherlands: Springer.

Zau, F. (2009, December 17). O estatuto das línguas de origem Africana [The status of the

languages of African origins]. Retrieved from

http://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/opiniao/artigo/o_estatuto_das_linguas_de_origem_africanas

Zau, F. (2010a, January 26). As línguas Africanas e o acordo ortográfico [African languages and

the orthographic accord]. Retrieved from http://

jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/17/0/as_línguas_africanas_e_o_acordo_ortográfico.

Zau, F. (2010b, March 28). A língua Portuguesa também é nossa [The Portuguese language is

also ours]. Retrieved from http:// jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/19/46/a_

língua_portuguesa_tambem_e_nossa.

Zelenka, R. (2013). Modality in the language of legal documents (Unpublished thesis). Tomas

Bata University, Faculty of Humanities: Zlin, Czech Republic.

Zhao, S. (2011). Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed). Handbook of research in

second language teaching and learning, (pp. 905-923). New York, NY: Routledge.

278
Zumwalt, K. (1996). Simple answers: alternative teacher certification. Educational Researcher,

25(8), 40-42.

Zúquete, J. P. (2008). Beyond reform: the orthographic accord and the future of the Portuguese

language. South European Society and Politics,13(4), 495-506.

279
 Appendix A

Interview Protocol (English Version)

Interview Protocol

Washington State University, Pullman

Department of Teaching and Learning

Title of the study: Language and Literacy Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa: Towards a

Bilingual Language Education Policy in Angola.

Interviewee:

Name:

Title:

Interviewer: Nicolas N. Manuel

Survey section used:

A. Interviewee language background

B. Socio-historical: language attitudes and ideology

C. Institutional and educational perspective

Introductory protocol

To facilitate our note taking, I would like to audio tape our conversations today. For your

information, only researcher on the project will be privy to the tapes which will be eventually

destroyed after they are transcribed. Thank you for agreeing to participate. I have planned this

interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time, I have several questions that I would

like to cover.

280
Introduction

You have been selected to speak with me today because you have been identified as someone

who has a great deal to share about language teaching and the value of Africa languages for

social development, the maintenance of linguistic and cultural diversity. My intention is to learn

more about people’s attitudes and views about the introduction of African languages in the

school system and the issues that may arise in the process in order to determine what kinds of

knowledge and research is needed for effective language policies and planning. I am more

interested in learning from you, by getting your opinions and thoughts about the current language

policy.

A. Interviewee Background

Would you tell me about your language experience in school?

Probe: Apart from Portuguese what other languages do you speak?

How long did it take you to learn the languages you speak?

Briefly describe your learning experience.

B. Socio-historical: language attitudes and ideology

1. Since independence Portuguese has been the official and the only language of instruction

in Angola.

a) What does it mean to you to have Portuguese has the only language used in schools

Probes: How has this situation affected you and your family?

b) To what extent do you think you have learned Portuguese well?

c) What are in your opinion the other factors that may have prevented the implementation of

bilingual or multilingual language policy in Angola?

281
d) What do you think about the introduction of African languages in schools?

e) What is your personal view and attitude towards the people who like or do not like to

speak African languages in public places (schools, workplace, and public transportation)?

f) What does it mean to you not to have a good command of Portuguese in Angola?

g) Some Angolan intellectuals argue that African languages are poor, backward and lacking

vocabulary; therefore they cannot be used in schools, and nor can they serve for social

development. Would you please comment?

A. Institutional and educational perspective

1. The new language policy approved by the Angolan parliament stipulates that African

languages be taught in schools as subjects from 1st grade until 3rd grade. What do you

think of this policy?

2. What is in your opinion the main objective of the new language policy?

3. What role should language educators and communities play in the negotiation,

design, and implementation of language of instruction policies in Angola?

4. The Angolan government has not ratified the acordo ortográfico “the orthographic

accord” in the context of the Comunidade dos Paises de Lingua Portuguesa (CPLP)

(Community of Portuguese Language Speaking Countries). What do you think about

this orthographic accord?

5. Tell me how Portuguese has facilitated or not facilitated your life in general.

6. Do you think that communities (parents, traditional authorities, NGO, religious

institutions) could positively contribute to the success not only of teaching of African

282
 languages in schools, but also to the maintenance and revitalization of African

languages? Are communities involved this project?

7. What pedagogical and psychological advantages are there in learning African

languages?

8. What are in your opinion the kinds of activities that can help promote the use of

African languages?

9. If you were involved in language education policy efforts, what would in your

opinion be the appropriate language policy for Angola?

10. Is it possible for children to learn two or three languages simultaneously? Would you

comment?

11. Are there any advantages in speaking two or three languages?

Thank you. I highly appreciate your time. Remember that the thoughts and ideas you

shared with me today will be used to evaluate the current language policy, to propose the design

of a better and inclusive language policy in order to improve the school achievement of our

children in schools. Remember that your identity will remain confidential. Should you have any

concerns or questions do not hesitate to contact me at

Cell: 509-3369869

Office: 5093358681 Fax: 509-335-6959

Email: nmanuelima@yahoo.fr; nicklima68@gmail.com; nicolau.manuel@email.wsu.edu;

Home Address: 1650 NE Valley Road, Apt B22. Pullman, Washington, 99163, USA.

283
 Interview Protocol (Portuguese Version)

Universidade de Estado de Washington, Pullman

Departamento de Ensino e Aprendizagem

Título do estudo: Políticas línguistica e literacia na África sub-Sahariana: Rumo a uma Política

Linguistica de Educação Bilíngue em Angola.

Entrevistado:

Nome:.................................

Título:..................................

Entrevistador: Nicolas N. Manuel, Assistente e doutorando em estudos culturais e pensamento

social na educação

Secções de pesquisa utilizada:

A. Informacoes basicas sobre o entrevistado

B. Sócio-históricos: atitudes de linguagem e ideologia

C. Perspectiva educacional e institucional

Introdução

Para facilitar nossas anotações, eu gostaria de áudio gravar nossas conversas hoje. Para sua

informação, apenas os pesquisadores deste projeto terão accesso as fitas que serão eventualmente

destruídas depois da transcrição das mesmas.

(1) todas as informações serão mantidas confidenciais, (2) sua participação é voluntária e você

pode desistir a qualquer momento,quando você sentir-se desconfortável, e (3) eu não pretendo

causar qualquer dano. Obrigado por concordar em participar.

284
Tenho planeado esta entrevista para a uma duração de pelo menos uma hora. Durante este tempo,

tenho várias perguntas que eu gostaria de fazer para ajudar melhorar o ensino das linguas

Africanas em Angola.

Breve Nota

Fostes escolhido para conversar comigo hoje por ter sido identificado como alguém que tem

conhecimento sobre o ensino de línguas e o valor das línguas Áfricanas para o desenvolvimento

social, a manutenção da diversidade linguística e cultural. Minha intenção é aprender mais sobre

atitudes, ideais, e opnioes sobre a introdução das línguas africanas no sistema de ensino

Angolano, e as questões que possam surgir no processo de implemenatcao da actual politica

linguistica, a fim de determinar os tipos de conhecimentos e pesquisa necessárias para um

planeamento e políticas linguísticas eficaz. Estou interessado em aprender convosco para obter

suas opiniões, ideas, e pensamentos sobre a actual política línguistica no pais.

A. Informacoes basícas sobre o entrevistado

Conta-me um pouco sobre sua experiência escolar?

Sonda: Para além do português que outras línguas você fala?

Quanto tempo levou para aprender as línguas que você fala?

Descreva brevemente sua experiência de aprendizagem da lingua portugu

B. Contexto sócio-histórico: atitudes de linguagem e ideologia

a. O que significa para si que o Português tem sido a única lingua usado nas escolas

Sondas: Como esta situação afectou você e sua família?

b. Em que medida você acha que domina a lingua portuguêsa?

285
 c. Em sua opinião quais foram os factores que terao impedido a implementação de

uma política línguistica bilíngüe ou a introducao das linguas Africanas no ensino

em Angola?

d. O que você acha sobre a ideia de que a introdução das línguas africanas nas

escolas pode ser um factor de divisão entre os angolanos?

e. Qual é a sua opinião pessoal e atitude para com as pessoas que gostam ou não

gostam de falar línguas africanas em locais público (escolas, local de trabalho e

transporte público)?

f. No contexto da realidade sócio-histórico e político do país, o que significa para

você não ter um bom domínio da língua portuguesa?

g. Alguns intelectuais angolanos alegam que as línguas africanas são pobre, atrasado

e faltando de vocabulário; portanto, não podem ser utilizados nas escolas, e nem

podem servir para o desenvolvimento tecnologico e cientifico. Qual e a sua

opiniao acerca disso?

C. Perspectiva educacional e institucional

a. No quadro das iniciativas do governo para uma política linguistica democratica, o

Parlamento angolano aprovou o Projecto Lei Sobre as Linguas Nacionais que prevê

que as línguas africanas devem ser usado como meio de instrução da primeira classe

(1 classe) até terceira classe (3 classe) do ensino primario. Qual e a sua opinião sobre

esta nova politica linguística?

b. Qual é na sua opinião, o principal objectivo da nova política línguistica?

286
c. Qual e o papel que os educadores (professores, linguistas, etc) e comunidades podem

desempenhar ou tem desempemhado na consecussao, negociação, e implementação

da nova políticas de lingua de instrução em Angola?

d. O governo angolano não ractificou o acordo ortográfico no contexto da Comunidade

dos Paises de Lingua Portuguesa (CPLP). O que você acha sobre este acordo

ortográfico?

e. Diga-me como a lingua Portuguêsa tem facilitado ou não facilitado sua vida em

termos de emprego e de mobilidade social.

f. Você acha que as comunidades, ou seja, encarregados de educacao, instituições

religiosas, autoridades tradicionais, ONG, podem contribuir positivamente para o

sucesso não só do ensino das línguas africanas nas escolas, mas também para a

manutenção e revitalização das mesmas?

g. Quais são as vantagens pedágogicas e psicólogicas da aprendizagem das linguas

Africanas?

h. Em sua opinião que tipo de actividades podem ajudar a promover o uso das línguas

africanas a nivel social, educativo, tecnologico, e cientifico?

i. Se você estivesse envolvido em esforços de política de ensino das línguas em Angola,

qual seria sua opção para uma política linguistica apropriada em Angola?

j. Em sua opiniao é possível para as crianças aprenderem duas ou três línguas

simultaneamente? Comenta por favor

k. Há alguma vantagem em falar duas ou três línguas?

l. Qual e valor e importancia de falar um lingua Africana para si pessoalmente?

287
Obrigado. Agradeço muito pela paciencia e sua disponibilidade.

Lembre-se de que as ideias e opinioes que você compartilhou comigo hoje serão usados para

avaliar a política linguistica actual, e propor um programa de ensino de linguas melhor e

inclusiva, a fim de melhorar o desempenho escolar de nossas crianças e promover o respeito pela

diversidade linguistica.

Lembre-se de que sua identidade permanece confidencial.

Se você tiver dúvidas ou perguntas, não hesite em contactar-me em

Célular: 509-3369869

Escritório: 5093358681

E-mail:nmanuelima@yahoo.fr; nicklima68@gmail.com ; nicolau.manuel@email.wsu.edu

Endereço para correspondência: 1650 NE Valley Road,

B22 Apt, Pullman, Washington, 99163, EUA.

288
 Appendix B

The People and the National Languages of Angola

289