Language Policy in Ethiopia: The Interplay Between Policy and Practice in Tigray Regional State (Language Policy, 24) 3030639037, 9783030639037

Citation preview

Language Policy

Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes

Language Policy in Ethiopia The Interplay Between Policy and Practice in Tigray Regional State Contributions by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton

Language Policy Volume 24

Series Editors Joseph Lo Bianco , University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Terrence G. Wiley, Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA Editorial Board Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley, USA Georges Lüdi, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland Normand Labrie, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Anne Pakir, National University of Singapore, Singapore John Trim, Former Fellow, Selwyn College, Cambridge, UK Guadalupe Valdes, Stanford University, California, USA

The last half century has witnessed an explosive shift in language diversity not unlike the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, but involving now a rapid spread of global languages and an associated threat to small languages. The diffusion of global languages, the stampede towards English, the counter-pressures in the form of ethnic efforts to reverse or slow the process, the continued determination of nation-states to assert national identity through language, and, in an opposite direction, the greater tolerance shown to multilingualism and the increasing concern for language rights, all these are working to make the study of the nature and possibilities of language policy and planning a field of swift growth. The series will publish empirical studies of general language policy or of language education policy, or monographs dealing with the theory and general nature of the field. We welcome detailed accounts of language policy-making—who is involved, what is done, how it develops, why it is attempted. We will publish research dealing with the development of policy under different conditions and the effect of implementation. We will be interested in accounts of policy development by governments and governmental agencies, by large international companies, foundations, and organizations, as well as the efforts of groups attempting to resist or modify governmental policies. We will also consider empirical studies that are relevant to policy of a general nature, e.g. the local effects of the developing European policy of starting language teaching earlier, the numbers of hours of instruction needed to achieve competence, selection and training of language teachers, the language effects of the Internet. Other possible topics include the legal basis for language policy, the role of social identity in policy development, the influence of political ideology on language policy, the role of economic factors, policy as a reflection of social change. The series is intended for scholars in the field of language policy and others interested in the topic, including sociolinguists, educational and applied linguists, language planners, language educators, sociologists, political scientists, and comparative educationalists. Book proposals for this series may be submitted to the Publishing Editor: Natalie Rieborn, Publishing Editor, Springer, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands [email protected]

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6209

Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes

Language Policy in Ethiopia The Interplay Between Policy and Practice in Tigray Regional State Contributions by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton

Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes (deceased) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Contributions by Joseph Lo Bianco Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC, Australia Joy Kreeft Peyton Center for Applied Linguistics Washington, DC, USA

ISSN 1571-5361 ISSN 2452-1027 (electronic) Language Policy ISBN 978-3-030-63903-7 ISBN 978-3-030-63904-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Series Editor Foreword

Language Policy Book Series: Our Aims and Approach Recent decades have witnessed a rapid expansion of interest in language policy studies as transcultural connections deepen and expand all across the globe. Whether it is to facilitate more democratic forms of participation, or to respond to demands for increased educational opportunity from marginalised communities, or to better understand the technologisation of communication, language policy and planning has come to the fore as a practice and a field of study. In all parts of the world, the push for language policy is a reflection of such rapid and deep globalisation, undertaken by governments to facilitate or diversify trade, to design and deliver multilingual public services, to teach less-commonly taught languages and to revitalise endangered languages. There is also interest in forms of language policy to bolster new and more inclusive kinds of language based and literate citizenship. Real-world language developments have pushed scholars to generate new theory on language policy and to explore new empirical accounts of language policy processes. At the heart of these endeavours is the search for the resolution of communication problems between ethnic groups, nations, individuals, authorities and citizens as well as educators and learners. Key research concerns have been the rapid spread of global languages, especially English and more recently Chinese, and the economic, social and identity repercussions that follow, linked to concerns about the accelerating threat to the vitality of small languages across the world. Other topics that have attracted research attention have been persisting communication inequalities, the changing language situation in different parts of the world, and how language and literacy abilities affect social opportunity, employment and identity. In the very recent past, language diversity itself has been a popular field of study, to explore particular ways to classify and understand multilingualism, the fate of particular groups of languages or individual languages, and questions of literacy, script and orthography. In this complex landscape of language change efforts of national and sub-national groups to reverse or slow language shift have dominated v

vi

Series Editor Foreword

concerns of policy makers as well as scholars. While there is a discernible trend towards greater openness to multilingualism and increasing concern for language rights, we can also note the continued determination of nation-states to assert a singular identity through language, sometimes through repressive measures. For all these reasons, systematic, careful and critical study of the nature and possibilities of language policy and planning is a topic of growing global significance. In response to this dynamic environment of change and complexity, this series publishes empirical research of general language policy in diverse domains, such as education, or monographs dealing with the theory and general nature of the field. We welcome detailed accounts of language policy-making which explore the key actors, their modes of conceiving their activity, and the perspective of scholars reflecting on the processes and outcomes of policy. Our series aims to understand how language policy develops, why it is attempted, and how it is critiqued, defended and elaborated or changed. We are interested in publishing research dealing with the development of policy under different conditions and the effect of its implementation. We are interested in accounts of policy undertaken by governments but also by non- governmental bodies, by international corporations, foundations and the like, as well as the efforts of groups attempting to resist or modify governmental policies. We will also consider empirical studies that are relevant to policy of a general nature, for example the local effects of transnational policy influence, such as the United Nations, the European Union or regional bodies in Africa, Asia and the Americas. We encourage proposals dealing with practical questions of when to commence language teaching, the numbers of hours of instruction needed to achieve set levels of competence, selection and training of language teachers, the language effects of the Internet, issues of program design and innovation. Other possible topics include non-education domains such as legal and health interpreting, community- and family-based language planning, language policy from bottom-up advocacy, and language change that arises from traditional forms of power alongside influence and modelling of alternatives to established forms of communication. Contemporary language policy studies can examine the legal basis for language policy, the role of social identity in policy development, the influence of political ideology on language policy formulation, the role of economic factors in success or failure of language plans or studies of policy as a reflection of social change. We do not wish to limit or define the limits of what language policy research can encompass, and our primary interest is to solicit serious book-length examinations, whether the format is for a single-authored or multi-authored volume or a coherent edited work with multiple contributors.

Series Editor Foreword

vii

The series is intended for scholars in the field of language policy and others interested in the topic, including sociolinguists, educational and applied linguists, language planners, language educators, sociologists, political scientists, and comparative educationalists. We welcome your submissions or an enquiry from you about ideas for work in our series that opens new directions for the field of language policy. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Joseph Lo Bianco

Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

Terrence G. Wiley

Foreword by Berhanu Bogale

In 2006, the Ministry of Education of Ethiopia commissioned a study on medium of instruction in primary schools in Ethiopia. It was during this time that I came to know Mekonnen, as we were both among members of the group that carried out the study. Other members of the group were Dr. Kathleen Heugh and Dr. Carol Benson, both of whom had done extensive research on issues related to literacy, multilingual education, language policy, and language planning. The team had visited almost all of the regions in the country. It was during this time that I witnessed Mekonnen’s keenness to understand the situation of students in primary schools in Ethiopia. It was during this time that we also witnessed that students in primary schools in the country were struggling with English, which was used as the medium of instruction, starting from grade five, in some regions. Mekonnen was so sympathetic with these students, who would just look at the teacher trying to explain concepts in English, a foreign language in Ethiopia. It was this situation that later motivated him to carry out an in-depth study into the case of minority group students in the Tigray region. In the course of the medium of instruction study, we noticed that, in Ethiopia (the second most populous country in Africa, with a population of more than 110 million people) there is a lot to be studied in the area of literacy, mother tongue-based multilingual education, language policy and planning, language in education and development, etc. We wrote a proposal to Addis Ababa University asking for the opening of a field of study that focuses on these areas. A year later, a PhD programme in Applied Linguistics and Development was opened. Mekonnen was the first to apply for the programme and get accepted. I was Mekonnen’s instructor for applied linguistics courses, including research methods in applied linguistics. In our classes, Mekonnen showed a level of understanding, commitment, and critical and analytical thought that is required of a good PhD candidate. Mekonnen’s academic strengths are complemented by his research skills. While doing his PhD, he co-authored two chapters in a book published by Rutledge: Multilingual Education and Sustainable Diversity Work: From Periphery to Centre. He has also co-authored two chapters in another book published by Orient

ix

x

Foreword by Berhanu Bogale

Black Swan: Multilingual Education Works. It’s just so sad that we have lost Mekonnen a month after he has successfully defended his PhD thesis. This book – on the interplay and tension between language policy and language practices in the Tigray region, Ethiopia – is an important addition to the debate on language policy and planning and mother tongue-based education. One of the major findings of the study is the attribution of language policy to two major factors: ideological and empirical. This has been explained by taking three different regimes: the Imperial regime, whose language policy was ideologically motivated; the Post1974 socialist Derg; and the post-1991 federal governments that used both empirical and ideological motives to put in place multilingual policies. The book takes one of the regional states, Tigray, and shows how the Tigray liberation and nationalist movement has used language as an ideological tool to achieve its political aims. Related to this is the finding that official language policy could be an explicit manifestation of the ideology that a country follows while it could have implicit manifestations as well. According to the education and training policy and the constitution of Ethiopia, which have promulgated multilingual policy, regional states are mandated to adopt and implement their own language policies. Most of the regional states are multilingual, with less developed languages that may not even have an orthography. It is, thus, the responsibility of regional states to determine the choice of languages of education. The study shows how governments explicitly proclaim linguistic rights of all nationalities of a country and yet, covertly, practice a monolingual policy – ending up having conflicting language policies. Mekonnen explains this by describing the case of the Tigray regional state, which has an explicit multilingual policy and yet implemented a de facto monolingual policy by forcing the Irob people, whose mother tongue is the Saho language, to use Tigrigna as a medium of instruction. The study also explicates why language policy and planning is created, manifested, contested, and mediated through explicit and implicit policy mechanisms. I have no doubt that the book will interest readers, not only because it captures how a small local community like Irob is impacted by all this and the strategies they use to respond but also because it seeks to gain deeper understanding of the explicit and implicit voices, motivations, ideologies, instances, and intended or unintended consequences of language policy and planning in the sociopolitical and historical contexts of a country. I am grateful to Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton who have edited the volume following the reviews and made other needed contributions to bring Mekonnen’s research to fruition. Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Berhanu Bogale

Testimonial by Wendi Ralaingita

I want to thank the editors for allowing me to share some words about Mekonnen. It is an honor to do so. I met Mekonnen in November of 2012, when I moved to Addis Ababa to work on the READ TA program. He was one of very few people on our team at the beginning, and I am immensely grateful to have been able to work with him. When we started, I was interested in expanding my understanding of Ethiopian languages and culture, and he was expanding his knowledge of early-grade reading. We learned so much from each other, as well as from the other talented people who became part of the READ TA team. Mekonnen was balancing work on his PhD with the full-time job of training, and then supporting, writing teams representing seven different languages across Ethiopia to develop the teaching/learning materials for reading, grades 1–8. The work was intense, but I could tell from countless conversations over buna (coffee) that the work on his PhD was helping to inform our work on the reading program, and viceversa. Those conversations also helped me to understand Ethiopian history, culture, and politics – all of which intertwine closely with language issues – in a way that I never could have otherwise. After I left Ethiopia in 2015, I stayed in touch with Mekonnen and was thrilled when he emailed to let me know that his dissertation was complete and he had successfully defended it, to complete his PhD. He sent me a draft, and I was fascinated to learn even far more than what he was able to share in the time we had worked together. Only a month later, I was devastated to hear that he had passed away. I was so happy when Joy let me know that his dissertation was going to be published. His work on READ TA was a valuable contribution to his country and the many children who have benefitted from the materials he helped to develop. Now, this book will help many others learn more about language, history, and culture in Ethiopia, as well as to understand more about the intersection of these more broadly.

xi

xii

Testimonial by Wendi Ralaingita

I am grateful to the editors and to all involved in the process of preparing this book for publication. I will always be grateful that I was able to get to know and work with Mekonnen. Senior Education Advisor RTI International, International Development Group North Carolina, USA

Wendi Ralaingita (PhD)

Comments by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton

The title page of this book has the name of its author, Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes, and our names as contributors. In these comments we explain how this unusual situation arose and how the doctoral dissertation that Mekonnen submitted to Addis Ababa University has been converted into a book issued by an academic publishing house. We, Joy and Joe, have known each other for many years, from when Joe studied, lived, and worked in the United States, and we have had the pleasure of writing and publishing together in the past. However, working to bring to fruition Mekonnen’s PhD research has been a highly original and occasionally challenging task. In 2014, Joy worked with Mekonnen in Ethiopia. They collaborated on the READ Technical Assistance Project, an education reform initiative to promote literacy and support school attendance. READ was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the lead contractor for the project was RTI International. Mekonnen worked as the Reading/Curriculum Specialist for RTI International, and Joy was engaged in the project with sub-contractor, SIL LEAD. Joy and Mekonnen collaborated on many aspects of the overall READ activity – designing and planning materials to be developed in the seven main languages spoken in Ethiopia: Amharic, Afaan Oromo, Aff Somali, Hadiya, Sidamu Afoo, Tigrinya, and Wolaita; and providing support for training the personnel who would write and use course materials in these languages. Their collaboration involved meeting instructional leaders, curriculum developers, and writers; and providing continuous support for their work throughout the project. At one point they travelled from Addis Ababa to Mekelle, Mekonnen’s home city, and worked with the teams developing materials in the Tigrinya language to provide refresher workshops and other technical assistance. During this time, Joy had extensive discussions with Mekonnen about issues of language policy and planning in Ethiopia and noted Mekonnen’s passion for this topic, which was the focus of his doctoral research. In November 2015, Mekonnen successfully defended his dissertation, entitled Language Policy in Ethiopia: The Interplay and Tensions xiii

xiv

Comments by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton

Between Language Policy and Practices at Addis Ababa University. Sadly, just 4 weeks after his successful defence of the dissertation, he died after being admitted to hospital for treatment of a chronic illness from which he suffered. Joy had met Mekonnen’s wife, Sophia Mohamed Nur, and they too became friends. After Mekonnen passed, she asked if Mekonnen’s dissertation could be published. Joy contacted Joe because of his academic specialisation in the same field as Mekonnen’s research, language policy and its impact on education and links between policy and literacy use and development. As series co-editor with Terence Wiley of the Springer Language Policy books, Joe noted the absence of substantive literature on Ethiopia and the paucity of first-hand accounts of its impressive history with language policy. Joe undertook to explore how publication of the thesis could be arranged and how Springer’s issues of copyright, manuscript review processes, author/editorship responsibilities could be addressed so that the regular processes of publication standards would be observed. The aim was to ensure that this important work could be made available to a wider audience. Together we prepared a book proposal, obtained anonymous expert reviews and then incorporated their comments into the text. We have made these changes to convert a university thesis with its academic conventions into a scholarly book publication for a wider audience. We are, therefore, delighted to bring Mekonnen’s significant research work in his dissertation to fruition as an internationally available academic book. In this process, we sought to make the language policies and processes in Ethiopia, and their impact on education planning and implementation, as clear as possible to what we anticipate will be an international readership. We have combined some of the chapters and added overviews and conclusions to signpost Mekonnen’s key arguments and the flow of his data gathering, analysis, and interpretation. We have maintained the central vision, key arguments, source data, and critical innovative concepts that characterise Mekonnen’s important work. In producing this volume we would like to express our deep gratitude to the following people for their valuable contributions: • Sophia Mohamed Nur, for her idea that this book be published and her support and encouragement throughout the editing process; • Dr. Berhanu Bogale, Mekonnen’s professor and dissertation advisor, for writing the Foreword and supporting us in our work; • Dr. Yirga Gelaw Woldeyes, of Curtin University in Western Australia, for his assistance with points of interpretation, for helpful comments and content about social, cultural and historical issues, and for assisting with citation conventions of Ethiopian names; • Four anonymous reviewers, who provided clear direction for how to structure and edit the original dissertation for publication in book format. We trust that Mekonnen would be pleased with the outcome which we have undertaken with the utmost respect for him and his scholarly achievement. There is little widely available literature on the unique, extended and complex language policymaking in the Irob area of Tigray, Ethiopia. The volume we are proud to

Comments by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton

xv

bring to fruition shows the value and deep insight of Mekonnen’s study, bringing perspective from how policy is experienced by small communities and how this must influence how we imagine and understand the totality of the language policy enterprise. Macro studies of policy, whether descriptive accounts of their aims and procedures, or critical accounts of their ideology and assumptions, are incomplete without meso and micro level analysis of further interpretation, modification, their eventual implementation and effects. The counter-effects are part of the dynamic process depicted through the critical lens that Mekonnen applies in this rare and valuable contribution to global literature on language policy studies. We hope that future generations of Ethiopian and international scholars will be inspired by Mekonnen’s dedication and insights, and benefit from his scholarship and professionalism.

Book Overview

This book is based on a study presented November 2015, in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (School of Graduate Studies, Applied Linguistics and Development) at Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The presiding mentor was Dr. Berhanu Bogale. Given the pre- and post-1991 sociopolitical and historical contexts in Ethiopia, the emergence and promulgation of official multilingual policies and ideologies have led to de facto monolingual policies and ideologies in the country. These policies and practices have led to the emergence of counter-hegemonic policies and practices. This book examines the interplay and tensions between language policy and language practices within these contextual processes. The study employed qualitative research methodology with an ethnographic research design and critical discourse methods of analysis, which are crucial to illuminating micro-level processes and constructs vis-à-vis macro-level processes and constructs. The study revealed that although multilingual policies are officially proclaimed in Ethiopia, restrictive or hegemonic language policies are perpetuated and maintained in practice. It also found out that such residual resistance to pluralism emanated from the dominant group’s interests, instructionally rooted practices, ideologies, mechanisms, and agents. The study also found out that even though the majority or dominant language groups continued to perpetuate language policies and practices to maintain their language-based dominance and ideology, individuals or groups from the minority (e.g., activists and educators) continued to struggle and gain their language spaces and rights by creating micro-level resistance language policies, processes, and mechanisms that influenced or affected the macro-level policies. The study concluded that language policy and practice, being a dynamic, multilayered, contextual process, can be difficult to understand, since the official language policy often underpins or is underpinned by overt or covert language policies, practices, ideologies, mechanisms, and agents. These are the key constructs of the proposed theoretical framework, Ideology as a Locus of Language Policy.

xvii

Acknowledgments by Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes

In making my way on this Ph.D. journey, many people and institutions deserve acknowledgement, though it is difficult to name them all. I primarily give my thanks and sincere appreciation to Dr. Berhanu Bogale for his invaluable collegial and academic advice and insights, flexibility, and accessibility. Haftey (Ak’eza) and my brothers, Ejigu, Goitom, and Yibrah, you were my Saviors! You shouldered all of the life-threatening challenges during my 2012 neurological surgery! Thank you so much for saving my life and for being always with me. Being away for so long, my family – Sophi, Sophanit, Sweba, and Sea’ni – I made you suffer a lot. But, finally we did it! No more time away! I am always with you! My sister, Demekech, having an unbelievable telepathy, I made you worry from a distance. You are a sister indeed! My brothers, Gebre and Yosi in the U.S., thank you so much for providing me contemporary books on language policy. Dr. Heidi Biseth and Professor David Castell Johnson, thank you so much for providing me with the necessary reference materials. Professor Kathleen Heugh and Professor Elizabeth Lanza, thank you for critically commenting on my PhD proposal. My heartfelt thanks also go to my friends, Dr. Abate Kassahun, Dr. Zenawi Zerihun, Dr. Zelealem Taffere (all from Mekelle University), and Dr. Wendi Ralaingita (RTI) for your scholarly and personal supports and ideas. My stay at Akaki Campus would not have been enjoyable and insightful without you, Dr. Ayenew, Ato Tsega-ab Kassa, Dr. Esayas Tajebe, Eisrael, Mohammed, Temesgen, and others. Thank you all! I am especially grateful for all of the research participants who willingly participated in this study and shared their exciting experiences.

xix

xx

Acknowledgments by Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes

Finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my sister, Akeza or Haftey, who has committed her worthy youth’s life for me and particularly to my education, and to the entire family! I am entirely your product! Haftey, keep this Ph.D. alongside my ‘Grade 1 Certificate’! This dynamic adventure is a result of your wholehearted and well-rounded endeavors.

Photograph courtesy of Sophia Mehamed Nur

Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa, Ethiopia November 2015

Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes

Contents

1

Language Policy and Planning Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Perspectives on Language and Language Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The Imperial System and Ancient LP in Ethiopia: An Overview . . 1.3 Reasons to Study Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia . . . . . 1.4 Approaches to the Study of LPP in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Populations and Languages in the Tigray Regional State . . . 1.4.2 Decisions About Languages Used in the Regional State . . . 1.5 LPP as a Field of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 A Field of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 Rational Approach to LPP and Positivist Theory . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Critical Approach to LPP: Critical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Critical Language Policy (CLP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Theories and Concepts in Contemporary LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.1 Overarching Approaches to LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.2 Explicit Versus Implicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.3 Top-Down Planning and Bottom-Up Processes . . . . . . . . . 1.6.4 The Metaphor of Unpeeling the Onion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6.5 Summarizing the Theoretical Framework for this Study . . . 1.7 Focus and Scope of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 5 6 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 24

2

The Tigray Region of Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Language Policy and Planning in Pre-1991 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Language Policy and Planning in Post-1991 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Studies of Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The Present Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Data Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 29 30 33 34 38 41 42 43

. . . . . . . . .

xxi

xxii

Contents

2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.6.6 References . 3

4

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nationalities and Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................

Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia) . . 3.2.1 The Amharic-Only Policy: Explicit and Implicit Manifestations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Amharic-Only Policy: Implications for the Tigrayan People and Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Tigrayans’ Resistance to the Pre-1991 Amharic-Only LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Schools as Centers of Resistance in Tigray . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Public Signs as a Way to Resist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.6 The TPLF and Resistance LPP in Tigray . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray . . . 3.3.1 Mechanisms, Agency, and Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Multilingual LPP as Appropriated in Post-1991 Tigray . . . 3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 46 46 47 49

. . .

53 53 54

.

54

.

58

. . . . . . . . .

59 61 63 65 67 68 75 85 85

Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Language Practices and Linguistic Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Language Practices: Classroom, School, and Community . . . 4.2.2 Linguistic Landscapes: Urban Community, School, and Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Responses of Participants in the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Teacher Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Student Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Participants’ Ethnic Identity and Mother Tongue . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Participants’ Language Proficiency and Choice of MOI . . . 4.3.5 LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences at Home and Outside the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 In-School LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.7 Out-Of-School LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 The Irob Nationality’s LPP Resistance Process: Agency and Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 91 93 94 95 96 98

Contents

xxiii

4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4

Regional Micro, Meso, and Macro Layers of LPP . . . . . . Localized LPP Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micro and Macro Factors for Partial Implementation of the Irob Community’s Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Mismatch Between the Irob Community’s Request and Macro-Level Policy Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Proclamations on Regional Minority Language Use . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. 104 . 105 . 108 . . . .

110 111 113 114

Research Implications and Policy Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Empirical and Ideological Factors in LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Explicit and Implicit Manifestations of LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Approaches/Methods of LPP Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Contextual Agents of LPP Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 LPP as a Dynamic, Contextual Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The LPP Process Is Not Just a Professional Occupation . . . 5.3.2 Language Policy and Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 LPP and Resistance Ideologies and Movements . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 LPP, Ideology, and Power in a Multilingual LPP Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 Community-Based LPP Processes and Contextual Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Theoretical Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 A New Understanding of LPP Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Implications for CLP Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Implications for Future LPP Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Implications for Policy and Decision Makers . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Implications and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 115 116 116 117 117 119 120 121 121 123

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2. Ethiopian Terms (Tigrinya and *Amharic) . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3. Ethiopian Calendar and Naming Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4. Documents Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primary Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 5. Objectives of the First Tigrinya Language Symposium . . . Appendix 6. Objectives of the Tigrinya Language Academy . . . . . . . . Appendix 7. Programs of the Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT) . . . Appendix 8. Orthography of Saho Language (Addis Ababa Meeting) . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

123 124 126 128 130 131 131 132 134 137 137 138 139 139 139 141 141 142 143 143

xxiv

Contents

Minutes of the Addis Ababa-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 9. Orthography of the Saho Language (Mekelle Meeting) . . . . Minutes of the Mekelle-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 10. Orthography of the Saho Language (Adigrat Meeting) . . . Minutes of the Adigrat-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 11. Orthography of the Saho Language (Dowhan Meeting) . . . . Minutes of the Dowhan-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 12. Papers and Study Reports General Conference on Saho LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papers and Study Reports Selected for Presentation at the Irob Nationality Dowhan General Conference on Saho LPP . . . . . . Appendix 13. Number of Participants and Data Collection Methods . . . . Appendix 14. Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials (Interviews) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Protocol I Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 15. Tigray State Education Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Protocol II Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Educators/Curriculum Developers Who Took Part in the Post-1991 Tigrinya MOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 16. Interview Protocol III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPLF Founders and TPLF Historians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 17. Interview Protocol IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPLF Members and Educators of the Pre-1991 Tigrinya Medium Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 18. Interview Protocol V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-1991 TPLF Education Department Head, TRSEB Head of Post-1991 TRSEB, and TGE/EPRDF Representative to the MOE during the TGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 19. Interview Protocol VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saho LPP Initiators and/or Community-Based Committee Members for the Saho LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 20. Questionnaire I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 21. Questionnaire II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Educators/Curriculum Developers Who Took Part in the Post-1991 Tigrinya MOI . . . . . . Appendix 22. Questionnaire III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TPLF Founders and TPLF Historians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 23. Questionnaire IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143 144 144 144 144 145 145 145 145 146 148 148 149

149 149 149 150 150 151

151 152 152 153 153 155 155 157 157 158

Contents

TPLF Members and Educators of the Pre-1991 Tigrinya Medium Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 24. Questionnaire V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-1991 TPLF Education Department Head, TRSEB Head of Post-1991 TRSEB, and TGE/EPRDF Representative to the MOE during the TGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 25. Questionnaire VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saho LPP Initiators and/or Community-Based Committee Members for the Saho LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 26. Structured Interview: Students and Teachers . . . . . . . . .

xxv

. 158 . 160

. 160 . 161 . 161 . 163

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Tripartite LPP theory. (Spolsky 2004, as reconstructed by Shohamy 2006, p. 53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2

Observation types and rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of Tigray and the Irob Wereda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44 47

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2

Public sign in Tigrinya . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Public sign in Amharic .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .

64 64

Fig. 5.1

Tripartite LPP Theory. (Spolsky 2004 as reconstructed by Shohamy 2006, p. 53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Ideology as a Locus of LPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Fig. 5.2

xxvii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8

Teacher participants in one school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Student participants in one school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Participants’ and their parents’ mother tongue and ethnic identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Participants’ own language proficiency ratings and MOI choices . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . 92 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used at home and outside the home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used in the classroom . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 94 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used outside the classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Irob Communities’ reasons for choosing the Ge’ez Script for the Saho Language. (Source: Minutes of Irob Community Meetings held in various cities or towns in and outside Tigray; Appendices 8–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

xxix

Chapter 1

Language Policy and Planning Research

1.1

Perspectives on Language and Language Policy

Language has often been viewed as a fixed and rule-bound system, “governed by fixed boundaries and controlled by strict rules of correctness in terms of grammar, lexicon, spelling, syntax, discourse and accent” (Shohamy 2006, p. 2). Such positivist views about language have led languages or language varieties to be classified as good versus bad, official/national versus local/vernacular, dominant/majority versus dominated/minority, elaborated versus restricted, etc. These classifications have created the need for more objective ways of understanding languages and their place in the contexts in which they are used. In so doing, language planning emerged as a field of inquiry “roughly around World War II” (Ricento 2000, p. 196). It was assumed that language planning was an objective system of solving perceived “language problems through decisions about alternative goals, means, and outcomes” (Rubin 1971, p. 218). Ruiz (1984) described understandings of the role of languages and their outcomes in a given society according to three views or orientations: language as a problem, which promotes monolingual and assimilationist approaches; language as a resource, which promotes multilingualism and linguistic diversity; and language as a right, which promotes linguistic human rights. With a language as a problem orientation, linguistic diversity or multilingualism can be considered an obstacle to modernization and national unity. Thus, in the pursuit of adopting the Western “one-language one-nation” nation building ideology, developing nations (which include most postcolonial African countries) adopted a monolingual policy as a solution to assumed language problems. At the same time, language, as “architecture of social behaviour” (Blommaert 2009, p. 263), and thus language policy, as “one of the most sensitive barometers of the freedom to choose” (McCarty 2011, p. 9), perpetuates social stratification and

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4_1

1

2

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

hierarchies of power. Consequently, language policy and language planning1 are not solely about language per se but rather more about power relations and sociopolitical and historical concerns of a state and its people. Cognizant of such newly emerging views on language, it became evident that language policy and planning is far beyond pragmatic concerns of solving language problems as perceived by macrolevel agents. Language planning has been defined as an “exercise of judgment in the form of choices among available linguistic forms” (Haugen 1972, p. 512). In such an endeavor, the government as a sole and rational policy agent “evaluates competing language plans within the framework of cost/benefit analysis” (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 406). Yet, policy decisions about language may not merely be about language. They also may not be rational or objective decisions, choices, or plans for or about languages or language varieties. Policy decisions could rather be ideologically tuned decisions or choices which could underpin or be underpinned by various factors within various sociolinguistic, political, and historical contexts. Language in education policy (LEP)2 is, therefore, not purely about language and education but about power in society through the education system (e.g., May 2003a, b, 2006; Schiffman 2006; Wiley 2006). Supporting this, Carnoy (1982, p. 116) argues that education and language use in education serve three pivotal purposes in a society: “economic reproductive (a process of qualification for work in the economy), ideological (the inculcation of attitudes and values), and repressive (the imposition of sanctions for not complying with the demands of school” (cited in Phillipson 1992, p. 68). In reaction to such concerns, contemporary LPP research, influenced by critical and postmodern theories, views language and language policy as dynamic social and ideological processes. “Language and language policy both exist in . . . highly complex, interacting and dynamic contexts, the modifications of any part of which may have correlated effects (and causes) on any other part” (Spolsky 2004, p. 6). Contemporary LPP scholars question whether languages can be planned at all (e.g. Pennycook 2006), since language policy and planning can result from “the absence” or “presence of planning” (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 404). They further contend that a government or its bodies as agents of LPP could have “primarily nonlinguistic agendas” and that planning could lead to “unintended outcomes,” incomplete or inappropriate implementation, and “sketchy or nonexistent” evaluation. Supporting this, Baldauf (1994) contends that “language policy decisions are power related,” and thus “top-down planning . . . may leave or create 1

In scholarly literature, these terms are at times used interchangeably or synonymously (e.g., Cooper 1989, p. 29); at other times they are distinct, and language planning is a component of language policy (Ricento 2000; Spolsky 2004); often they are used together, as language policy and planning, LPP (e.g. Hornberger 2006; McCarty 2011; Ricento and Hornberger 1996). 2 Some have argued that language in education policy (LEP) is one aspect of LPP. It was first introduced by Cooper (1989) as Acquisition Planning (decisions about the users and uses of language in education), a third constituent of language planning, along with Status Planning and Corpus Planning, terms first used by Heinz Kloss (1969), according to Hornberger (2006).

1.2 The Imperial System and Ancient LP in Ethiopia: An Overview

3

unplanned or misplanned outcomes for others” (p. 83). Shohamy (2006) argues that LPP in even a country with democratic multilingual policies “on the surface may follow the rules of democratic societies, including the promotion of language learning, yet the actual language policy . . . is often in contradiction to these policies” (p. 46). These concerns imply that LPP is a dynamic, multilayered, contextual process, involving various types of interplays and tensions among various levels of agents when the policies and plans are created, interpreted, and implemented. Therefore, this study questions whether it is possible to understand real language policy by depending solely on the official policy from the top, and thus attempts to address the questions of who decides what language to use and how and why that happens. The study examines the factors, mechanisms, and agents underlying how and why language policies and practices (explicit or implicit ones) emerge, continue, and change or develop under various sociopolitical and historical contexts in Ethiopia.

1.2

The Imperial System and Ancient LP in Ethiopia: An Overview

There was no written language policy in Ethiopia before the period of Haile Selassie (1930–1974). During the Axumite period, up to 6th century, Ge’ez was the language of the kings, the clergy, and the common people. Since Orthodox Christianity became the official religion of the country in the fourth century, numerous books were translated from Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek sources (Isaac 2013). When the Zagwe Dynasty replaced the Axumites, Amharic emerged as an important language of the monarchical rule (Sergew Hable Selassie 1972). While Bender (1983) believes that Amharic is a pigin produced from the fusion of the superstratum of Semitic and Cushitic languages starting from the fourth to fourteenth centuries, Girma Awgichew Demeke argues that it was a linear descendant of Semitic languages (Girma Awgichew Demeke 2009). Despite the increasing influence of Amharic in the administration of the empire, the Ge’ez language continued to be an important source of scholarship, church education, and worship (Ephraim Isaac 2013). Among other subjects, the study of Ge’ez grammar, poetry, and interpretation of texts constitute the curriculum of Ge’ez schools which are taught to students of the Orthodox Tewahido Church. Arabic become an important medium of instruction in Muslim schools (Bahru Zewde 2002). Amharic achieved a default status of being a national language of the country in the middle of the nineteenth century. Emperor Tewodros of Gondar (1855–1868),3 Yohannes IV of Tigray (1871–1889) and Menelik II of Shoa (1888–1910), administered their territories and wrote their

3

Examples of Amharic letters can be found in Girma-Selassie Asfaw and Appleyard D. (1979). The Amharic letters of Emperor Theodore of Ethiopia to Queen Victoria and her special envoy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

official letters to European powers in Amharic. The growing exposure of Ethiopia to the western world after the Battle of Adowa created an interest for opening a school for the training of language experts. Different foreign languages were considered important, but as far as Ethiopian languages were concerned, Ethiopian leaders considered only Amharic. Considering the relative influence of the language of instruction, the monarchical education system since the opening of the first modern school was dominated by French (1908–1935), Italian (1935–1941), English (1941–1955), and Amharic (1955–1974) languages. When the first modern school was opened in 1908 by Menelik II, students studied French, English, Mathematics, Amharic, Italian, Arabic, Geography, History, and Sport (Bahru Zewde 2002, pp. 23–24). Initially, the church opposed the opening of a modern school for fear that foreign education would expose the minds of the students to European religions. A compromise was reached by allowing only Coptic teachers to be in charge of the school. In 1925, Teferi Mekonnen (future Emperor Haile Selassie) opened a second school, and after he became king in 1930, he opened schools in regional towns, including in Adowa and Mekelle towns of Tigray (Pankhurst 1968). Zelealem Leyew (2012) believes “before the reign of Haile-Sellassie (1930–1974), there was no written LPO [language policy] that was officially recognized by law” (p. 4). Because of this, the history of written language policy emerged during this period. The expansion of the modern school system from 1908 to 1935 was limited to major centres of the empire, and access to schooling was restricted to members of the ruling classes. During Italy’s occupation of the country from 1935 to 1940, the Italian administrators “decided to replace Amharic with Italian as an official language and to adopt a multiple language policy as far as the indigenous languages were concerned” (Pankhurst 1972, p. 369). With the restoration of Emperor Haile Selassie to power through the support of Britain, English became the dominant language of education. According to Tekeste Negash, the period between 1940s and 1950s could be described as “the golden age of modern education” in Ethiopia (Tekeste Negash 2010, p. 10). The Emperor assumed the portfolio of the ministry of education for himself and provided boarding, clothing, school materials, and allowances freely for students. Mulugeta Wodajo (1960) reported that enrolment increased from 30,000 in 1946, to 100,000 in 1955, and 140,000 in 1958 (p. 159). In 1950, the University College of Addis Ababa (UCAA), the first higher education institution, was created. According to Teshome Wagaw (1990), “the aim of the UCAA was to provide the youth of Ethiopia with a sound academic background in the fields of Arts and Science, leading to further professional studies abroad” (p. 72; see also Teshame Wagaw 2007). The introduction of the 1955 constitution declared Amharic to be the official language of the country. Cooper (1978) noted that the spread of Amharic was perceived as a means of “national integration” (p. 459). There was a gradual decline of British influence as the Emperor shifted his attention to Americans, who advocated for a local language, rather than a colonial language, to become a medium of education. American experts were involved in the Long Term Planning Committee of 1955 and the preparation of the 1971 Sector Review. There was an increased

1.3 Reasons to Study Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia

5

emphasis on replacing the influence of English with Amharic, but no attention was given to other indigenous languages. “The 1958/59 revised curriculum introduced the new education act which made Amharic the language of instruction in primary and English in secondary education” (Zelealem Leyew 2012, p. 19). When Haile Selassie was removed from power by the military junta called the Derg, he had a draft constitution to create a constitutional monarchy (New York Times, Aug. 12, 1974). Article 45 states that “Without violating all those statements in other articles of the constitution, Ethiopian tribes and nationalities shall enjoy the right to maintain and develop their language and culture” (Parker 1994). However, he was removed in 1974 before the draft became law.

1.3

Reasons to Study Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia

Chapter 2 is devoted to an extended account of the linguistic, socio-political, and historical context of this study, within the Tigray region of Ethiopia. What follows here is a broad introduction to ground this focus on LPP more closely to the setting in which the research investigation was located. Language policy and planning (LPP) is a subfield of sociolinguistics (McKay and Hornberger 1996). This study is situated in the LPP research arena called critical language policy (CLP). CLP scholars contend that LPP research: (1) needs to examine localized LPP processes (Blommaert 1996; Canagarajah 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2011), (2) needs to be “engaged critically with the wider social and political conditions, and crucially, their historical antecedents” (May 2006, pp. 255–256), which could encompass the different “factors and institutions involved” in the LPP processes (Tollefson 2006, p. 51); (3) suffers from addressing how macro-level and micro-level policies and processes interact (Ricento 2000); and (4) lacks empirical data to test various LPP theories or concepts (Johnson 2007). Consequently, LPP research is claimed to lack an overarching LPP conceptual or theoretical framework, despite the existence of an increasing number of LPP theoretical conceptualizations (e.g. Ricento and Hornberger 1996; Ricento 2006). Consequently, taking Ethiopia and the Tigray region of Ethiopia as a microcosm to CLP research, the study seeks to examine these issues of concern. In reaction to contemporary LPP research needs, it critically examines: (1) localized LPP processes across the various sociopolitical and historical contexts of pre-and post-1991 Ethiopia; (2) LPP process not solely as a top-down or bottom-up policy process but as both top-down and bottom-up; (3) LPP not as a linear process (e.g., with a cycle of formulation, implementation, and evaluation), but as a multilayered and dynamic construct. Therefore, it is hoped that the study addresses theoretical and empirical concerns about CLP research. It is also hoped that illumination of how and why LPP in Tigray-Ethiopia has played a social stratification role will inform policy agents across various levels of the LPP process. Finally, it is hoped that the study will help

6

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

to enlighten subjugated language groups on the social stratification roles of LPP and suggest counter-social stratification strategies or processes.

1.4

Approaches to the Study of LPP in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, as in many other countries, a monolingual language policy (the use of only one language) has been advocated or declared and practiced as a de jure or de facto policy, with the goal that this would achieve and maintain national unity and modernity. Despite the great linguistic diversity of the country, language policy as a whole, and particularly language in education policy, has had a monolingual focus, with only Amharic used in education and administration. The coming to power of the Derg4 in 1974 and the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) in 1991 can be posited as marks of transition of the country into a de jure multilingual language policy. Contrary to the monolingual policy of pre-1974 imperial Ethiopia, both the Derg and the EPRDF/Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE)5 proclaimed a multilingual policy, which officially provided all nationalities the right to develop and use their languages for education and other domains (Transitional Government of Ethiopia TGE 1991a, b). Nevertheless, while the Derg in practice continued to run a monolingual policy, the EPRDF, through the TGE Charter, the Policy Decisions on Languages of Education document (TGE 1991b), the New Education and Training Policy (Ministry of Education, MOE 1994), and the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE 1995) can be claimed to have put a multilingual policy into practice. Moreover, the 1995 Constitution, which has brought ethnic federalism to the fore, has further restructured the country into nine “ethnically” demarcated and decentralized “autonomous” regional states and two administrative cities. This mandated that the newly formed regional states adopt and implement their own language policies. Consequently, the choice of language of administration and education became a major language policy concern of the newly decentralized, autonomous, regional states, most of which are multilingual, with less developed languages that have underdeveloped or no orthography and scarce literate human and financial resources. Following these sociopolitical and historical changes in post-1991 Ethiopia, one can argue that the federal Constitutional linguistic rights of all nationalities has led to mother tongue-based multilingual education policies and practices in the decentralized and autonomous regional states. At the same time, the adoption and

The Amharic word “Derg” literally means committee and refers to the military junta or regime that took power in 1974 following the Ethiopian University Students’ Movement, which overthrew the Imperial regime. 5 The Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) ruled Ethiopia in the transition period (1991–1994) and was replaced by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1994-present). 4

1.4 Approaches to the Study of LPP in Ethiopia

7

implementation of the federal Constitution and language policy at the regional level have been affected by various sociolinguistic, political, and historical factors. Despite the language policy advances toward pluralism at the federal level, the education system, and particularly practices in the regional states, have remained problematic sites for promoting multilingual education policy and linguistic pluralism. For example, although federal policy goals shifted toward granting the right of all groups to carry out mother tongue education, language policy adoption and practices at the regional levels (e.g., in Tigray) seem to be largely in favor of the majority languages of the regions (e.g., Tigrinya) and to the marginalization of the other groups and their languages. As a result, some regionally dominant languages (e.g., Tigrinya) have emerged as new regional hegemonic languages. What is actually in place is a hegemonic language policy (maintenance of the dominant language) rather than a counter-hegemonic language policy (recognition of minority languages such as Irob) in the regional state of Tigray under the federal political system and power structure of post 1991-Ethiopia. This study, therefore, argues that the adoption and implementation of LPP by the regional state of Tigray, which has led to the continuity of hegemonic language policy and to a de facto continuation of a counter-hegemonic or resistance LPP, has been affected by factors and forces at multiple levels within the sociopolitical and historical contexts. The study examines the interplay and tensions between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic language policy and processes in the regional state of Tigray across the pre-and post-1991 sociopolitical and historical contexts of Ethiopia. What we can see is that LPP in Ethiopia seems to represent agency-driven de facto hegemonic policies and practices. The imperial politics of centralization and homogenization had presumed monolingual policy and ideology as a tool for building a monolingual Ethiopian empire. Despite the Derg’s socialist ideological orientation of equality of all nations and nationalities and their languages (as stipulated in its political or official programs), the Derg’s language policy was a de facto continuation of its predecessor’s monolingual policy based on a nation building ideology. Following the pre-1991 centrist and hegemonic language policies and ideologies, post-1991 Ethiopia officially brought multilingual policy to the public fore and, arguably, into practice. Thus, addressing questions of nations and nationalities became the primary concern of the current government, which took power in 1991. Multilingual policy and ideology, and thus the choice of language of administration and education, became the key concerns of the transitional government and its policy agents. This granted the newly structured regional states, under the auspices of the EPRDF/TGE, and later the federal Constitution and government, to formulate and implement their own language policies, taking their respective nationalities, linguistic features, and other pertinent conditions into consideration. As a result, many Ethiopian languages (over 30) are currently used as languages of administration and primary education. Yet, monolingual language in education and administration policies and practices seem to prevail in some of the multilingual regional states. Given this, some regional states’ language policies seem to be further de facto continuations of the past centrist

8

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

and hegemonic nation building ideology in decentralized and federally constituted regional political structures. From a LPP research perspective, “policy documents, language laws, officiality, nationalization, language academics and citizenship laws” are referred to as language policy devices or mechanisms (Shohamy 2006, p. 59). Official documents or statements in the federal or regional Constitution and in language and education policy documents are taken as language policy devices or tools. Consequently, we could argue that the language policies as stated in such official documents reflect the ideologies of the government in power at central, federal, or regional state levels and that such ideologies affect the language practices at various sociopolitical domains, including language use in education. At the same time, such language policies and practices can be resisted by individuals, language communities, institutions, concerned policy agents, or bodies at various levels of the LPP processes (i.e. policy making, interpretation, and implementation), and thus, the processes could be subject to negotiation or change, which may imply implicit and unplanned language policies or practices, and/or bottom-up policy-making processes. The National Regional State of Tigray (NRST) provides an example of this. The Tigray regional language policy and practices can be argued, on the one hand, to be reflections of resistance to linguistic hegemony from the top centralized state power. On the other hand, it can be argued that the regional LPP contexts are reflections of an emerging regional linguistic hegemony and thus a residual resistance to regional pluralism or multilingual education, which further seems to have led to the emergence of regional-minority language groups’ resistance to the regionally hegemonic de facto LPP and negotiated language policy changes. To illustrate these regional LPP contextual cases, below are some pivotal LPP contextual processes as experienced in the regional state of Tigray. To lay the foundation for this, a brief description is given of the sociolinguistic and demographic features of the regional state.

1.4.1

Populations and Languages in the Tigray Regional State

The Tigray Regional State’s Constitution declares that three nationalities constitute the region – Tigray, Irob, and Kunama, whose mother tongues are Tigrinya, Saho,6 and Kunama respectively (Article 39). The Constitution states that Tigrinya is the working language of the region (Article 5). The region also constitutes other

6

The words Irob and Saho are often points of contention in terms of their reference either to the people or to the language. In this study, in line with the Irob nationality’s tentatively agreed decision on the reference of these two words, the word Irob is used in reference to the people, and the word Saho is used in reference to the Irob people’s language (Saho LPP Committee decision, Meeting held on 24/12/2000 EC, Mekelle, ILCA-Minutes, p. 10).

1.4 Approaches to the Study of LPP in Ethiopia

9

nationalities – like Amhara (1.63%), Afar (0.29%), Agaw (0.21%) and Oromo (0.17%). According to the 2007 census, the total population of the region is 4,314,456, of which 96.55% (4,165,749) are native Tigrinya speakers or of Tigray nationality. The two other nationalities, Irob and Kunama, comprise 0.71% (30,517) and 0.07% (2976), respectively. The Amhara, Afar, Agaw and Oromo nationalities together constitute 2.23% and all other nationalities, more than 70, put together account for less than 0.05% of the total population of the region (Central Statistical Agency 2010).

1.4.2

Decisions About Languages Used in the Regional State

Decision 1 The regional majority’s language, Tigrinya, was used in education and administration in some parts of Tigray, called Hara-Merets,7 while only Amharic was used in all other parts of Tigray and the country, in line with the Derg’s Amharic-only monolingual policy for Ethiopia, 1974–1991. Decision 2 Only the majority’s language, Tigrinya, was used in education and administration throughout the regional state, regardless of the linguistic diversity of the region and contrary to the official language policies stated in the federal and regional Constitutions of post-1991 Ethiopia. Decision 3 Individuals from the Saho language community started to argue that they had a right to use the Saho language in education. They formed committees and took the initiative to perform language planning activities in the arena of corpus planning, developing an orthography for the Saho language. Decision 4 The Irob Language and Cultural Association (ILCA) conducted various discussions, meetings, and conferences with the language community to decide the writing system for the Saho language. The Irob Wereda Council approved the Irob people’s decision to use Ge’ez to write the Saho language and officially requested that the regional council pass decisions and further actions to support this path. Decision 5 The Tigray Regional State Education Bureau (TRSEB) implemented the use of the Saho language as a school subject, but not as a medium of instruction (MOI). Thus, so far no other language except Tigrinya is in use as an MOI. Since 2009, the Saho language has started to be taught as a school subject. Currently, students up to grade 6 are taught the Saho language as a subject. These policy decisions and practices imply that “decisions about language are always context dependent, and hence can be both hegemonic and counterhegemonic” (McCarty 2011, p. 9). They seem to reflect the battles and 7

The term Hara-Merets is a Tigrinya word, which means Enemy-Free or Liberated Lands/Areas. Areas or districts of pre-1991 Tigray that were free from the Derg’s control, and thus under the administration of the TPLF, were referred as Hara-Merets.

10

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

interplays among language policies, practices, and ideologies of various policy agents at various layers of the LPP processes – at macro, meso, and micro levels within and across the various pre-and post-1991 sociopolitical and historical contexts of the country. They also seem to reflect the majority language community’s interest in maintaining or perpetuating the majority language. Nonetheless, such top-down hegemonic policy decisions do not seem to be in conformity with the other minority language communities’ interests, ideologies, or practices. This led to the emergence of the minorities’ resistance to the top-down policy decisions and processes and thus to the emergence of minority language community-led bottomup LPP contextual processes. This question of policy and political interplay is taken up in more detail in Chap. 2, where a deeper account of the dynamics of LPP in Tigray is presented. The next section and remainder of this chapter discusses the conceptual and theoretical tools used in the analysis reported in this volume, and provides a contemporary overview of the academic field of study that deals with the formal and informal decision making dynamics of language in society and its institutions.

1.5

LPP as a Field of Inquiry

As a field of inquiry, language policy and planning (LLP) can be divided into three historical phases or stages (Ricento 2000). In addition to describing these historical stages of LLP research as understood by Ricento, the remaining sections of this chapter review two wider approaches that these stages reflect – the Rational Approach and the Critical Approach – and various theories and concepts related to these concsiderations. In this discussion, key contemporary and critical LPP theoretical frameworks are introduced and followed by brief descriptions of key cross-cutting concepts in LPP. Some key ones are top-down vs. bottom-up policy making and explicit vs. implicit forms of policy. The section begins with a brief review of the emergence of LPP as a field of inquiry and concludes with a description of the theoretical framework for the study of language policy, planning, and practices in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.

1.5.1

A Field of Study

The emergence of language planning as a distinct area of study within macrosociolinguistics goes back to the 1960s. Its early emergence, in the 1950s and 1960s, is attributed to solving language-based problems in the nation-building endeavors of newly emerging independent African and Asian countries (Baldauf 1994, 2005; Kaplan and Baldauf 1997; Rubin and Jernudd 1971). During this time, postcolonial countries, which are characterized by pervasive multilingualism, were

1.5 LPP as a Field of Inquiry

11

engaged in language planning efforts to solve presumed linguistic problems through efforts concerning language choice, language standardization, and codification. The evolution of language planning as a result of establishing language policies and implementation plans for post-colonial countries further captured interest in language planning in the West. Language planning has transitioned from planning efforts of less developed indigenous languages, and sometimes planning these languages in comparison with the colonial languages, to language planning studies for the developed world as well (e.g., Cobarrubias and Fishman 1983, cited in Baldauf 1994; Spolsky 2008). This resulted in language planning becoming a mature and self-critical field (Tollefson 1991). In relation to these changes, Ricento (2000) asserts that the development of language planning as a field of inquiry is “confluenced by multiple factors” (p. 197). He categorizes language planning research into three historical phases or stages:8 (1) Decolonization, Structuralism, and Pragmatism (1950s through early 1960s); (2) Failure of Modernization, Critical Sociolinguistics, and Access (early 1970s through late 1980s); (3) The New World Order, Post Modernism, and Linguistic Human Rights (mid 1980s to the present). The influence of positivism and structuralism, which largely dominated the initial phase of language planning research, gave rise to the Rational Approach to LPP (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 405). Similarly, in reaction to the positivists’ ontological and epistemological orientations to language and LPP, postmodern and critical theories led to the emergence of the second and third stages of LPP (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 406; Ricento 2000). The first and the second stages of language planning research can be posited as foundations for the third stage, which can be viewed as contemporary LPP. Contemporary LPP assumes that policy is never just “is” but rather “does” (Heath et al. 2008, p. 7; cited in McCarty 2011, p. 2). Thus, language and LPP are dynamic, complex, contextual processes. In light of this brief survey of the main intellectual currents and orientations in the discipline, the following sections review LPP research under the labels of a Rational Approach and a Critical Approach.

1.5.2

Rational Approach to LPP and Positivist Theory

From the perspectives of positivism and structuralism, language is viewed as an ideal system in which the structure and systems of the language in its pure form are stressed. Viewing language as an ideal system implies that it can exist without being 8 Ricento (2000, p. 196) pointed out that three types of factors have been instrumental in shaping the field and in influencing the kinds of questions asked, methodologies adopted, and goals aspired to. Each of the three terminologies in each of the three phases of language planning research reflects these three factors respectively, which Ricento labeled as: Macro-sociopolitical, sociopolitical events or processes; Epistemological, paradigms of knowledge and research; and Strategic, the ends or reasons for conducting research.

12

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

an integral part of the language community. Thus, LPP can be enacted in a rational and objective manner by a government or its organs with no or little concern for the language community. Jernudd and Das Gupta (1971) observe that language planning “is identified with an expert enterprise motivated by abstract ideals of a selected, albeit deeply concerned group of linguists” (p. 198). Rubin and Jernudd (1971) describe language planning as a “problem solving” activity, “characterized by the formulation and evaluation of alternatives for solving language problems to find the best (or optimal, most efficient) decision” (p. xvi). They point out that “modernization theory underlies much of language planning that is defined as deliberate language change” (p. xvi). Planned changes in language structure or use by planning organizations focused on problem solving endeavors. The approach to problem solving was employed to find and evaluate alternative solutions and to come up with the best decision. Thus, language planning efforts relied on decision making and cost-benefit analysis. Moreover, LPP used to be considered a rational national resource planning approach (Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971, p. 198), in which “goals are established, means are selected, and outcomes are predicted in a systematic and explicit manner” (Rubin 1971, p. 218). Consequently, from the perspective of the rational approach to LPP, most early phases of language planning research and theories were conceptualized as rational problem solving, pragmatic and objective, non-ideological, apolitical, and ahistorical (Nekvapil 2006; Ricento 2006; Tollefson 2002). However, such a simplified, rational, and objective approach to language planning as a path to modernization failed to take into account the multitude of influences on language use and the inherent role played by politics and ideology in language policy and planning. Sutton and Levinson (2001) criticize the rational approach of policy making as “a kind of fuel rod for the body politic: put in the policy and watch the machine run” (p. 5, cited in McCarty 2011, p. 6). A number of current LPP scholars contend that the rational approach to language planning was found inadequate to provide an overarching language policy and planning framework for analyzing or developing a multilingual language policy. Thus, a critical approach to LPP, which emerged from critical theory and in reaction to the rational approach, situates LPP within social theory and problematizes the theoretical assumptions of the rational approach (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 406).

1.5.3

Critical Approach to LPP: Critical Theory

Jurgen Habermas, one of the founders of critical theory, states that “critical theory is in stark contrast, on the one hand, to positivist theory (and by implication modernization theory), which has a concealed interest in control and manipulation, and, on the other hand, to interpretive theory (and by implication the micro-foundation of social reality), which aims to understand what people think without subjecting it to

1.5 LPP as a Field of Inquiry

13

critical reflection” (Habermas 1981a; cited in Romm 2001, p. 141). Thus, he contends that a “true revolution of modernity must lie in new modes of communicative rationality and, more specifically, new modes of democratic decision making” (ibid). Critical theory positions ideology as a foundational element and presumes that the free will of the speakers determines how a language actually works and should work. Santos (2006) notes that “critical theory starts with the assumption that societies are based on ideology, defined as the dominant systems of values, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and structures (social, political, economic, legal, educational, religious, etc.) in a society” (p. 737). Critical theory is, therefore, concerned with “examining the processes by which systems of social inequality are created and sustained. Of particular interest is inequality that is largely invisible, due to ideological processes that make inequality seem to be the natural condition of human social systems” (Tollefson 2006, p. 42).

1.5.4

Critical Language Policy (CLP)

CLP largely characterizes the third phase of Ricento’s historical categorization of LPP research. According to Tollefson (2006), the concept “critical” is used by language policy researchers to mean the following: “1) It refers to work which is critical of traditional approaches to language planning research, 2) It includes work which aims at social transformation, and 3) It describes research that draws on the insights of critical social theory” (p. 42). CLP can be posited as a complementary approach to the early approaches to LPP, since it is founded on the theoretical foundations of the previous approach to LPP. This section briefly reviews the theoretical and methodological assumptions and concerns of CLP research. Recent CLP research has addressed issues of critical theory such as power, struggle, colonization, hegemony and ideology, and resistance. In line with the focus on “critical” in CLP research, the term “power” means “the ability to control events in order to achieve one’s aim,” while “hegemony” and “colonization” are the mechanisms or processes of encroachment through unequal social structures or institutions (Tollefson 2006, p. 46). Thus, “in CLP research, power is implicit in the policy-making process, and language policies are seen as important mechanisms by which the state and other policy-making institutions seek to influence language behavior” (ibid). The other concepts that CLP research found crucial in critical theory are “struggle” and “resistance,” which refer to the counter-hegemonic or anti-domination endeavors for social justice by oppressed groups. Unlike RLP, in CLP, language is not conceptualized as an ideal abstract system. It rather views language as a dynamic system and examines the connection that a language has with its users. Wright (2007) argues that “the idea of an abstract, selfcontained conceptual system, a system of incontestable, normatively identical forms” of language centers not on how language is used in reality, but on the

14

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

agentivity of the language itself (p. 204). Moreover, CLP looks at the broader historical and ideological factors or forces that determine language policy and practice and takes language not simply as a linguistic commodity of communication but as a tool for power and domination. In a rational approach to LPP, language planning is conceived within “the most efficient and effective” decision making scenario, with the given limited resources, “to reach goals approved by the political authority” (Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971, p. 198). Yet, in a critical approach, which takes language not as a commodity but as social capital, it can be argued that LPP decision making based on economic efficiency and effectiveness in the context of scarce resources can lead to a monolingual policy and planning. In other words, considerations of efficiency and effectiveness on the basis of decision-making and cost-benefit analysis theories can lead to multilingual policy declaration without multilingual policy implementation. This is antithetical not only to multilingual LPP and practice but also to a “true revolution of modernity” (Habermas 1981a; cited in Romm 2001, p. 141). Moreover, a LPP “penetrated by a form of modernization guided by standards of economic and administrative rationality” disturbs the realm of “communicative rationality” (Habermas 1981b; cited in Romm 2001, p. 141). This leads us to question whether top-down language policy and planning decisions, based on economic factors, can guarantee the effective implementation of the decisions made. Consequently, LPP research on language ecology, and particularly on multilingualism and the state of endangered languages, have started to gain attention. LPP scholars are exploring links between LPP and language ecology (e.g. May 2003a; Shohamy 2006; Spolsky 2004, 2009), and some have questioned the link between sociolinguistic inequalities and LPP (Tollefson 1991, 2002). Researchers on LPP such as Phillipson (1992), Skutnabb-Kangas (2000), Nettle and Romaine (2002), and Romaine (2006) have contributed seminal works on linguistic imperialism, linguistic genocide, language shift, and other linguistic threats to thousands of indigenous languages.

1.6

Theories and Concepts in Contemporary LPP

In the light of the previous discussion of current research trends in LPP and their intellectual foundations, this book, which examines the interplay and tensions underlying LPP processes in a specific political and regional context, seeks to give insights into the role of micro language planning and its influences and the interactions between micro and macro language policy planning, which have not been explored in depth in the LPP literature. Key CLP cross-cutting concepts, especially the distinction between top-down versus bottom-up policy making and between explicit versus implicit forms of policy, are highly relevant to the regional and national setting of this study. These concepts and the theories on which they are based are crucial for grounding the overall theoretical framework of the research reported in this volume on a long

1.6 Theories and Concepts in Contemporary LPP

15

legacy of intellectual reflection about language in society, and so multiple but interrelated LPP theoretical or conceptual tools recur in this study.

1.6.1

Overarching Approaches to LPP

Two main overall approaches are discussed in this section, the historical–structural approach and its critics, and a Language Goals Integrative Approach. The historical-structural approach to LPP draws its conceptual inspiration from the historical materialism ideology of Karl Marx, as well as from social theory (Wood 1982, p. 302). It conceptualizes language planning as an essentially historical process, inextricably bound up with structural considerations, especially the interests and consciousness of social class. The historical-structural approach is claimed as the “dominant critical model in LPP over the past 20 years or so” (Ricento and Hornberger 1996, p. 406). It centers on the “influence of social and historical factors on language policy and language use” (Tollefson 2006, p. 48) and unravels “mechanisms by which policy decisions serve or undermine particular political and economic interests” (Tollefson 1991, p. 32). The historical-structural perspective assumes that individual variables, such as motivation, have some hidden explanation and views that variable as a historical product rather than as a primary factor in language acquisition. It locates the individual within classes or class fractions, which constitute a specific social formation (Tollefson 1991). Critics of the historical–structural approach reject the historical data on class and class struggle as metaphysical concerns (Wood 1982, p. 308). Proponents charge that traditional language policy and planning give no insight into the structural and ideological basis of language policies, nor their relationship with power, dominance, and hegemony, or their role in exploitation and struggle (Tollefson 1991). Contrasting with the historical-structural approach, and building on its criticisms is a view of LPP as an Integrative Framework of multiple activities not driven essentially by class questions or historical legacies. Sometimes called the ‘language policy and planning goals: an integrative framework,’ it is another approach worth considering. In effect, this 6-Matrix Model is an extension of Haugen’s (1983) 4-Matrix Model of language planning. This model differentiates between language planning types (e.g., status planning) and language planning approaches that focus on the form and function of the language (e.g., corpus planning). Furthermore, this model intertwines key distinguishing features among the three types of language planning: status planning, corpus planning, and acquisition planning. Hornberger (2006) explains that status planning deals with “allocation of functions of languages/literacies in a given speech community,” corpus planning deals with activities related to the “adequacy of the form or structure of languages/ literacies,” and acquisition planning deals with “the allocation of users or the distribution of languages/literacies” (p. 28).

16

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

The model distinguishes between two approaches to language and policy planning focused on form and on function. The policy approach, which corresponds to status planning at the societal level, deals with language matters of a nation, emphasizing the distribution of languages/literacies and primarily concerned with standard languages. The cultivation approach, which is equivalent to corpus planning, is concerned with matters of language and literacy at the microscopic level (Hornberger 2006, p. 28).

1.6.2

Explicit Versus Implicit

Defining explicit and implicit language policy and practices can be challenging, in light of multi-construct processes (top-down versus bottom-up) and components of LPP (language ideology, management, and practices). The definitions here seek to conceptualize these ideas in light of these complexities. Schiffman (1996) proposed two definitions of explicit and implicit dimensions of language policy. His early definition, below, identifies a discrepancy between two of Spolsky’s (2009) components of policy-language management and language practices. There is usually a difference between the policy as stated (the official, de jure, or overt policy) and the policy as it actually works at the practical level (the covert, de facto, or grass-roots policy). Schiffman’s other definition of explicit and implicit dimensions of policy pertains to top-down and bottom-up processes and the ways that covert agendas or language ideologies or beliefs influence language policy in practice (implementation). This definition confirms Spolsky’s (2009) assertion that “practices are the “real policy” (p. 4). It is important to view language policy as not only the explicit, written, overt, de jure, official, and “top-down” decision-making about language, but also the implicit, unwritten, covert, de facto, grass-roots, and unofficial ideas and assumptions, which can influence the outcomes of policy-making just as emphatically and definitively as the more explicit decisions. (Schiffman 2006, p. 112)

Explaining the essence of implicit policy, Schiffman (1996) states that the United States does not have an explicit language policy stating that English is the official language of the country. Yet, practices on the ground, which can be claimed as explicit manifestations of the covert language ideologies or attitudes of the country, indicate that the United States has an implicit language policy, which is pro-English (1996, p. 15). Furthermore, the “English-only” movements of some states, which seek to set explicit policies related to use of English, can be taken as an explicit manifestation of an implicit language policy (Spolsky 2009). This confirms Spolsky’s (2004) assertion that “language policy exists where it has not been made explicit or established by authority” (p. 8), which implies that understanding language policy requires an investigation of language practices and beliefs beyond what is explicitly stated in official documents.

1.6 Theories and Concepts in Contemporary LPP

17

Language policy is often inferred from official documents, such as Constitutions and formal policy statements, which may have explicit or implicit, practical or ideal intents. Similarly, language policy may be inferred from more informal statements of intent (e.g., discourses about language, politics, and society), or policy may be left unstated or covert (Baldauf 2005, p. 958). Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) note that the RLP locates research with a theory of power, which sees the top-down exercise of power (or domination) as the relevant construct for understanding decision-making about languages. Thus, investigation of language policy in local contexts, rather than just the top-down agencies such as governments, is “a fundamental and integrated part of the overall language planning process” (p. 4). A further notion underlying this definition is the implicit dimensions of policy or “unplanned” elements, including “planning” and “changes,” which can provide additional information about the LPP process. Spolsky (2009) notes that the concept of “unplanned language planning” is proposed to account for what goes wrong in “language policy” (p. 10) and may be best described as ineffective management (2008, p. 141). Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) highlight that “language change that is unplanned in a formal sense also affects language in a community” (p. 297) and that “unplanned language change can occur by accident or as a result of a laissez-faire stance toward language in general” (p. 297). Tollefson notes that although RLP scholars believed that the unexpected could be avoided as long as adequate information was available, CLP assumes that unexpected outcomes are a normal feature of highly complex social systems (Tollefson 2002, pp. 419–420). Thus, it can be argued that the notion of “unplanned changes” underlies Baldauf’s understanding and recognizes the complexity of implicit dimensions of language policy. In summary, the definitions above indicate that explicit and implicit dimensions of language policy involve a wide range of factors, including ideology, top-down and bottom-up perspectives, and unplanned changes. These definitions encapsulate some of the inherent complexities of language policy and recognize the limitations of policy to implement change in practice.

1.6.3

Top-Down Planning and Bottom-Up Processes

Rational language policy researchers viewed language policy as a top-down process, with the assumption that language planning is a pragmatic effort of the state or of linguists to influence or change the language behaviors or practices of a language community. Thus, the concept “top-down” planning is used to refer to languagerelated policy decisions made by “people with power and authority . . . for groups often with little or no consultation with the ultimate language learners or users” (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 196). The distinction between top–down and bottom–up approaches to language policy and planning points to the “relationship between state-authored policy and the community affected by language policy” (Johnson 2004, p. 93). Luke et al. (1990) maintain that the authority’s power in the language planning process extends beyond

18

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

the group for which planning is done by social planners and linguists. They used the term “supply side” ideology to describe the type of planning that regards people whose language is undergoing planning as “manipulatable objects of economic, political, and educational engineering” (p. 30). They argue that this work is done by social scientists who possess the cultural and linguistic capital which is to be desired. As a consequence, supply side planners ignore the interests of the powerless planners, phrasing the interests of the powerless in a series of abstractions such as equality and sociolinguistic rights rather than presenting a concrete analysis of their relationship to social structures of power and employment (p. 31). They observe that laboring people, particularly in East Asian states, have no say about the content of a language plan. In some South East Asian states, “the clients” of a language plan have limited, if any, effective electoral franchise, and insofar as the illusion of franchise exists, legislators’ options are delimited by the authoritarian mandates of a ruling class, party, or elite” (pp. 29–30). They claim that language planning that lacks a bottom–up element that does not involve the masses is essentially authoritarian, and social institutions, particularly educational ones, can be turned into sites of social conflict. Calvet (1998) argues that “all planning is carried out by a handful of planners possessing all the power over a people who are planned” (p. 203). He warns that language planners should exercise caution, since all planning presupposes the policy of those in power. The language planner, “by intervening in the languages, becomes part of the power game” (p. 203). Similarly, Freire’s (2005) concept of “banking education,” a “top to bottom” communicative approach, illustrates top–down planning in language education. Ricento (2006) notes that educators, legislators, and business leaders are largely influenced by bottom–up social practices and change. For example, the women’s movement has been instrumental in changing attitudes toward “sexist” language in English and other languages. The Civil Rights movement in the United States led to the abandonment of English literacy as a requirement for voting in the south and the provision of bilingual ballots where more than 5% of the electorate cannot vote in English. Furthermore, the Mother Tongue Movement in Taiwan led to two historical events: the review of the Broadcast Bill of 1993, under which local languages were allowed as languages of domestic broadcasts; and the reformulation of the language– in–education policy, which sanctioned the teaching of Taiwanese local languages in primary schools (Chen 2006, p. 323). Canagarajah (2006) contends that resistance to hegemonic language policies, and thus practice of alternative language policies by marginalized groups, are illustrative cases of bottom-up LPP processes. In such situations, Tollefson (2006) argues that it is a moral and democratic imperative for language planners to “accept the political principle that people who experience the consequences of language policy should have a major role in making policy decisions” (p. 45). Johnson (2007) rejects the binary distinctions of top–down and bottom–up language policy and planning and contends that they “obfuscate the multiple levels of context, which influence language policy decisions and ignore how policy making power can be differentially allocated within the community” (p. 15).

1.6 Theories and Concepts in Contemporary LPP

1.6.4

19

The Metaphor of Unpeeling the Onion

Ricento and Hornberger (1996) identified an emerging LPP theoretical framework that they named “Unpeeling the Onion” of the LPP Metaphor, which gives due emphasis to the levels and conditions of LPP. They argue that “LPP is a multilayered construct, where essential LPP components, agents, levels, and processes permeate and interact with each other in multiple and complex ways as they enact various types, approaches, and goals” (p. 419). The study described in this book, therefore, argues that such micro-macro-leveled interplay and tensions between top-down and bottom-up policy making underlie the complex and dynamic features of LPP processes and need to be understood not only as explicitly stated policies but also as complex processes that emerge in specific contexts. Thus, the Unpeeling the Onion framework serves as the foundation for examining how and why multilevel agents are involved in the LPP processes in various sociohistorical and sociopolitical contexts at national, regional, institutional, and local levels. Outer Layer The outer layer is composed of the “broad language policy objectives” articulated in the legislative and political processes at the country or regional levels, how political parties may influence language policy and the institutionalization of policy guidelines, and how they may or may not be enforced by an administration. According to Ricento and Hornberger (1996), this layer is where we observe the gaps between policy making (policy in intent) and policy implementation (policy in practice). Middle Layer This layer constitutes regional or institutional LPP agencies. Although states or institutions are not directly involved in most language planning, “education serves the socio-political and economic interests of the state, so that the state can perpetuate and enhance its power” (p. 413), and states or education institutions often play an indirect but implicit role in the adoption of language policy, with the power to carry out legislation for their own interests. Inner Layer This layer constitutes micro-level policy agencies, such as individuals and communities. Ricento and Hornberger argue that institutions are the “relatively permanent and socially constituted systems by which and through which individuals and communities gain identity, transmit cultural values, and attend primary social needs” (p. 415). Dealing with the roles of values and linguistic culture in covert policy, social attitudes play important roles in micro-level LPP processes. Ideally, these three layers will work together to create, perpetuate, and change or implement LPP and bring top-down and bottom-up policy making processes into unison rather into conflict. Yet, Ricento and Hornberger argue that although LPP as a multilayered construct could lead the three layers to interact and work with each other to create and implement LPP, there are often dissonances among these multilayered agencies. Ricento (2000) contends that an important variable which distinguishes traditional LPP from postmodern LPP is “agency,” “the role(s) of individuals and

20

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

collectivites in the process of language use, attitudes, and ultimately policies” (p. 208). Similarly, Bamgbose (1991) contends that “experience with language planning practices shows that nongovernmental agencies such as private companies, media houses, language societies, and teachers’ associations carry out significant work not only in the implementation of policy, but also in engineering the adoption of specific policies” (p. 29). Bamgbose states, though, that “how nongovernmental activity is to be incorporated in a language planning model is, of course, a matter for further study . . .” (p. 29).

1.6.5

Summarizing the Theoretical Framework for this Study

Spolsky’s (2008) LPP model subsumes ideology, ecology, and management and argues for a complex relationship among these components and a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of what language policy really is. In order to make sense of such language policy cases, Spolsky (2004) argues that “a useful first step is to distinguish between the three components of the language policy of a speech community: its language practices, the habitual pattern of selecting among varieties that make up linguistic repertoire; its language beliefs or ideology, the beliefs about language and language use; and any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning, or management” (p. 5). Consequently, Spolsky’s (2004) developing theory of language policy describes language planning, language ideology, and language practice as the three components of LPP, as shown in Fig. 1.1. Language Planning involves “the formulation and proclamation of an explicit plan or policy, usually but not necessarily written in a formal document, about language use” (p. 11). To better understand what language management is, Spolsky uses Cooper’s (1989) description of language planning: “who plans what for whom and how” (p. 31). Language Ideology, also referred to as language beliefs, is about “a speech community’s consensus on what value to apply to each of the language variables or named language varieties that make up its repertoire” (Spolsky 2004, p. 14). A simple description that connects the three language policy components is, “Language ideology is language policy with the manager left out, what people think should be done. Language practices, on the other hand, are what people actually do” (p. 14). Language Practices, also referred to as language ecology, deal with the kinds of language practices that actually take place (are practiced) in the entity, such as when, regardless of policy and beliefs and for a variety of reasons, certain languages are used in certain places and contexts (see also Shohamy 2006, p. 52). In light of the Critical LPP theories and concepts described above, with a focus on the LPP processes and events in the Tigray regional state of Ethiopia, it can be claimed that LPP is clearly context dependent, and official language policies and practices may not guarantee language practices on the ground, or vice versa.

1.7 Focus and Scope of this Study

21

LANGUAGE POLICY

LANGUAGE PLANNING

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

LANGUAGE PRACTICES

Fig. 1.1 Tripartite LPP theory. (Spolsky 2004, as reconstructed by Shohamy 2006, p. 53)

Similarly, it can be argued that multiple agents, with divergent ideologies and language practices in varied sociopolitical contexts and policy-making levels, have acted and reacted within the processes of LPP through multiple mechanisms. Third, the various LPP contextual processes illustrate how the three components of language policy – language planning (language management), language ideologies (as explicitly stated in official documents or implied from beliefs and attitudes), and language practices (as explicitly implemented or implied otherwise in practice) – shape and are shaped by language policies as they are created, and are appropriated in the various sociopolitical and historical contexts. Regional LPP contexts are likely to reflect the conflicts and interplay among the multiple policy layers of policy, ideologies, and practice. For example, LPP Context I could be a reflection of resistance language policy, which emerges as a result of conflicts between the agents’ official or unofficial language policies, ideologies, and practices. LPP Contexts II and III could be reflections of the interplay and tensions between the federal official language policy and ideology and the regional, explicit or implicit, language policies and ideologies. LPP Contexts IV and V could result from conflicts between the regional majority and the regional minority’s language policy, ideology, and language practices that underpin tensions between the explicit/ official language policy and its implementation/practice in the regional state. Spolsky’s theoretical framework, with its three components of language policy, is used as the theoretical foundation for the study of the various LPP contexts of the Tigray region described in this book. In addition, other factors, including levels and conditions, underpin the three components.

1.7

Focus and Scope of this Study

In light of this brief contextual account, developed at length in Chap. 2, it is important to consider the intellectual legacy and concepts of LPP. Ricento (2000) points out that, “The most important, and as yet unanswered, question to be addressed by researchers is: Why do individuals opt to use (or cease to use) particular languages and varieties for specified functions in different domains, and how do those choices influence–and how are they influenced by–institutional language policy decision-making (local to national and supranational)?” (p. 208).

22

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

To address Ricento’s “as yet unanswered question,” a critical examination of the LPP decisions described above could lead us to raise the following questions, focusing on “why and how LPP as a multilayered construct is created and countercreated by various policy agents at various layers of the LPP processes.” • Why and how has the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) created and appropriated Tigrinya as a MOI in the context of the pre-1991 Amharic only official policy of the country? • Why and how has the TPLF continued to perpetuate Tigrinya only as a MOI within the multilingual policy context of post-1991 Ethiopia? • Why and how has the Saho language community initiated, developed, and negotiated to create language policies and practices for Saho? Framing these contextually driven questions into broader critical LPP theoryoriented questions, the research questions guiding this study are: • What are the explicit and implicit voices, motivations, ideologies, instances, and intended or unintended consequences of LPP as it is created, interpreted, and appropriated across multiple policy layers and sociopolitical and historical contexts of Ethiopia? • Why is LPP, as a multilayered construct, created, contested, and mediated through explicit and implicit policy mechanisms? • How is LPP, as a multilayered ideological construct, manifested explicitly and implicitly through top-down and bottom-up approaches? Taking these research questions into account, this study examines the factors and forces underlying, and the processes undergone in creating, appropriating, and perpetuating LPP in the pre and post-1991 sociopolitical and historical contexts of Ethiopia. It explores the interplays and tensions among language policy, language ideology, and language in education practices in the regional state of Tigray during this time in order to: • Unravel the factors underpinning the emergence and continuity of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic language in education policies and practices • Explore how the majority continue to maintain their language space, and how the minority resist the majority language-based hegemonic policy and contest to gain language space • Investigate the interplay and tensions among language policy, ideology, and practice • Examine how language policy agents, levels, and processes permeate and interact with each other in a variety of ways • Investigate how top-down versus bottom-up policy making processes shape or reshape language policies and practices The study examines LPP processes in Ethiopia generally, with a particular focus on language in education policy and practices in the National Regional State of Tigray (NRST). Language in education policy was often found within the wider language policies and ideologies within or across the various sociopolitical and

1.7 Focus and Scope of this Study

23

historical contexts of the country. Thus, though the study focused on language in education policy, it further examined language policies pertaining to other domains of life (e.g., linguistic landscapes), which influence the creation of education policies. Although the regional state is characterized as multilingual, constituting three nationalities – Tigray, Irob, and Kunama – this study focused on language policy making by the Tigrayan and Irob nationalities. These two nationalities, and the Tigrinya and Saho languages associated with them, are the focus of the study for the following reasons. First, the LPP processes of the Tigrayan and Irob nationalities illuminate the interplay and tensions between bottom-up and top-down approaches within a localized and contextually dynamic region. Second, the two nationalities have been key language policy players in creating, perpetuating, resisting, or negotiating hegemonic and counter-hegemonic language policies or practices. Finally, being born and having lived my life in the regional state, and thus being familiar with its LPP activities and experiences, I was well situated to understand the ethnography of the LPP processes in the region. There were a number of challenges in carrying out the study. First, I sought to document the minority nationalities’ linguistic human rights in the regional state of Tigray, where the dominant nationality and the people in power seem to consider the regional state as a homogenous one, regardless of what is proclaimed by the federal and regional Constitutions. The Irob Wereda is located in the war-prone area of the Ethio-Eritrea border, and the Saho language is found on both sides of the border. Thus, a study of the Irob community might imply a comparative analysis of the language policy and practices in both Eritrea and Tigray. Such a comparison would be worthwhile, since the Saho language was not used in education in Tigray, while it was in Eritrea. However, since Eritrea was considered an enemy and undemocratic country, conducting such a study was difficult. Therefore, many individuals whom I wanted to interview refrained from taking part in the study, because they understood the issue to be extremely sensitive. Second, gaining access to key informants, such as key policy agents of the TPLF resistance policy, was difficult. It was necessary to approach these informants through others, who were considered to be more important in this regard. As a result, although preliminary contacts were made, actual interviews were not always possible. Attempts have been made to gain the needed information from other sources, such as from other interviews, media interview archives, and documents. Third, the lack of systematic documentation of past activities, especially of language use in education pre and post 1991, has constrained the study to some extent. Written reports and documents obtained from participants in different activities and processes were used as primary sources of data to fill the gaps. Finally, while some records or documents were claimed to have existed, lack of systematic organization of archives and documents limited their availability. For example, I was informed that a video was made of the Dowhan Irob Community Conference on the Saho language, but it was difficult to locate. Finally, late in the study, I managed to gather three video archives, which I was able to get because I

24

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

was accompanied by a key gate keeper and had an official support letter from Mekelle University. Pertinent research ethical issues were followed carefully in conducting the study. The researcher primarily received from the Advisor for post-graduate programs of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature at Addis Ababa University a letter outlining the purpose and goals of the study. This letter was important for securing permission to visit locations, contact and conduct interviews with people, and collect data and documents. Issues of consent and anonymity were discussed with participants, including whether they were comfortable with their interviews being recorded and their names identified. With those who were not comfortable with this, no recordings were made, and anonymity was guaranteed. In an effort to increase the validity of the data and the findings of the study, verification interviews were conducted to confirm the transcribed data (Gall et al. 1996) and clarify ideas that were unclear or ambiguous. Chapter 2 provides an in-depth analysis of the Tigray Region and of Ethiopia more generally, and specifically their experience of LPP.

References9 Bahru Zewde. 2002. Pioneers of change in Ethiopia. The reformist intellectuals of the early twentieth century. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press. Baldauf, R. B. Jr. 1994. Unplanned language policy and planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 82–89. Baldauf, R. B. Jr 2005. Language planning and policy research: An overview. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 953–970). London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bamgbose, A. 1991. Language and the nation. The language question in Sub-Saharan Africa. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bender M. L. 1983. The origin of Amharic. Journal of Ethiopian Languages and Literature, 1, 41–50. Blommaert, J. 1996. Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3), 199–222. Blommaert, J. 2009. Ethnography and democracy: Hyme’s political theory of language. Text and Talk, 29(3), 257–276. Calvet, L. J. (1998). Language wars and linguistic policies. New York: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Blackwell. Carnoy, M. 1982. Education, economy and the state. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Cultural and economic eproduction in education: Essays on class, ideology and the state (pp. 79–127). London: Routledge.

9

The convention for citation of Ethiopian authors is followed here for Ethiopian names, which is an individual’s personal name followed by a separate patronym (the given or first name of a person’s father) followed in some cases by an avonymic, or an earlier male ancestor. These are not separated by a comma or other punctuation. Unless an indivudal has modified his or her name to prefer initials for some components, all the relevant names are used in citation and referencing.

References

25

Central Statistical Agency. 2010. Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census. Addis Ababa. Chen, S. C. 2006. Simultaneous promotion of indigenisation and internationalisation: New language–in–education policy in Taiwan. Language and Education, 20(4), 322–337. Cobarrubias, J., and Fishman, J. A. 1983. Progress in language planning: International perspectives. Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 31, vi +383. The Hague: Mouton. Cooper, R. L. 1978. The spread of Amharic in Ethopia. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Advances in the study of societal multilingualism (pp. 459–476). The Hague: Mouton. Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ephraim Isaac. 2013. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church. Trenton: Red Sea Press. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 1995. Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Freire, P. 2005. Pedagogy of the oppressed. 30th ed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. 1996. Educational research: An introduction. 6th edition. New York: Longman Publishers. Girma Awgichew Demeke. 2009. The origin of Amharic. Red Sea Press: Trenton. Habermas, J. 1981a. Theory of communicative action, Volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by Thomas A. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. 1981b. Theory of communicative action, Volume two: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Translated by Thomas A. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Haugen, E. 1972. Linguistics and language planning. In E. S. Firchow, K. Grimstad, N. Hasselmo, and W. A. O’Neil (Eds.), Studies by Einar Haugen presented on the occasion of his 65th birthday – April 19, 1971 (pp. 410–530). The Hague: Mouton. Haugen, E. 1983. The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In J. Cobarrubias and J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning (pp. 269–289). Berlin: Mouton. Heath, S. B., Street, B. V., and Mills, M. 2008. Ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research (Language and Literacy Series). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hornberger, N. H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 273–289). Oxford: Blackwell. Hornberger, N. H., and Johnson, D.C. 2011. The Ethnography of language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 273–289). New York: Routledge. Jernudd, B. H., and Das Gupta, J. 1971. Towards a theory of language planning. In J. Rubin and B. H. Jernudd (Eds.), Can language be planned? (pp. 195–216). Honolulu: 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. 2007. Language policy within the school district of Philadelphia. (Unpublished PhD. dissertation). Department of Educational Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. Kaplan, R. B., and Baldauf, R. B., Jr. 1997. Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kloss, H. 1969. Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report. Quebec, Canada: International Centre for Research on Bilingualism. Liddicoat, A. J. and Baldauf, R.B. Jr. 2008. Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat and R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning in local contexts (pp. 3–17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Luke A., McHoul, A., and Mey, J. (1990). On the limits of language planning: Class, state, and power. In R. B. Baldauf Jr. and A. Luke (Eds.), Language planning and education in Australia and the South Pacific (pp. 25–44). Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

26

1 Language Policy and Planning Research

May, S. (2003a). Contesting linguistic homogeneity: minority language policies and the nationstate. In S. Wolff and G. Hogan-Brun (eds.). Minority Languages in Europe: frameworks – status – prospects (pp. 211–232). London: Palgrave Macmillan. May, S. 2003b. Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(2), 95–125. May, S. 2006. Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 255–272). Oxford: Blackwell. McCarty, T. L. 2011. Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge. McKay, S., and Hornberger, N. H. 1996. Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education. 1994. The new Ethiopian education and training policy. Addis Ababa. Mulugeta Wodajo. 1960. Ethiopian education: A medium for social change. The Phi Delta Kappan, 41(4), 158–161. Nekvapil, J. 2006. From language planning to language management. Sociolinguistics, 20, 92–104. Nettle, D., and Romaine, S. 2002. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: OUP. Pankhurst, R. 1968. Economic history of Ethiopia, 1800-1935. Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie I University Press. Pankhurst R. 1972. Education in Ethiopia during the Italian Fascist Occupation (1936-1941). The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 5(3), 361–396. Parker, B. (trans.) 1994. Ethiopian Constitution. Hornet. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/ Ethiopian_Constitution.html Pennycook, A. 2006. Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (ed.), Language policy: Theory and method (pp. 82–99). Blackwell. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: OUP. Ricento, T. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. Ricento, T. (Ed.). 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. Ricento, T., and Hornberger, N. H. 1996. Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–428. Romaine, S. 2006. Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy, 5, 441–473. Romm, N. 2001. Critical theory and development. In J. K. Coetzee, J. Graaff, F. Hendricks, and G. Wood (eds.), Development: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 141–153). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Rubin, J. 1971. Evaluation and language planning. In J. Rubin and B. Jernudd (Eds.), Can language be planned? (pp. 217–252). Honolulu: Honolulu University Press. Rubin, J., Jernudd, B. 1971. Introduction: Language planning as an element in modernization., In J. Rubin and B. Jernudd (Eds.), Can language be planned? (pp. xii–xxiv). Honolulu: Honolulu University Press. Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning. Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 2, 15–34. Santos, T. 2006. Politics of teaching. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2009 edition (pp. 734–744). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd. Schiffman, H. F. 1996. Linguistic culture and language policy. London and New York: Routledge. Schiffman, H. F. 2006. Language policy and linguistic culture. In T Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. Sergew Hable Selassie. 1972. Ancient and medieval Ethiopian history to 1270. Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie I University. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Oxford: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and human rights? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References

27

Spolsky B. 2004. Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. 2008. Language policy-The first half-century. In P. Van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and diversity of languages (pp. 137–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spolsky, B. 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutton, M., and Levinson, B.A. 2001. Policy as practice: Toward a sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport, CT: Ablex. Tekeste Negash. 2010. The curse of English as a medium of instruction in the Ethiopian education system. In P. Milkias & M. Kebede (Eds.), Education, politics and social change in Ethiopia (pp. 9–19). California: Tsehai Publishers. Teshome Wagaw. 1990. The development of higher education in Africa. An Ethiopian experience. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univerity of Michigan Press. Teshome Wagaw. 2007. The Ethiopian higher education: Creating space for reform. Addis Abba. St. Mary’s UC Printing Press. Tollefson, J. W. 1991. Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman. Tollefson, J. W. 2002. Limitations of language policy and planning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 416–425). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tollefson, J.W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Oxford: Blackwell. Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE). 1991a. Charter of the transitional government of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE). 1991b. Policy decisions on languages of education. December, Addis Ababa. (Unpublished official policy document) Wiley, T. G. 2006. The lessons of historical investigation: Implications for the study of language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 135–152). Oxford: Blackwell. Wood, C. H. 1982. Equilibrium and historical–structural perspective on migration. International Migration Review, 16 (2): 298–319. Wright, S. 2007. The right to speak one’s own language: Reflections on theory and practice. Language Policy, 6, 203–224. Zelealem Leyew. 2012. The Ethiopian language policy: A historical and typological overview. Ethiopian Journal of Languages and Literature, 12(2), 1–59.

Chapter 2

The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

2.1

Introduction

Ethiopia is a mosaic country, with over 80 different languages, which belong to four language families: Semitic, Cushitic, Omotic, and Nilo-Saharan. The major Ethiopian languages are Amharic, Oromo, Sidama, Somali, Tigrinya, and Wolaita, which are estimated to be spoken by 90% of the population. The Oromo language is by far the most commonly spoken, by the Oromo people, who constitute about 40% of the population. In 2017, the population of Ethiopia was over 100 million, making it the second most populated country in Africa (Simons and Fennig 2017, Ethnologue; Ethiopia Population 2018). In addition to these languages, Ge’ez, a language of the Ethiopian Orthodox church, is an Ethiopian classical written language with no mother tongue speakers. Arabic is spoken by Ethiopian Muslims and serves as their spiritual language. Regarding the written status of Ethiopian languages, Girma Awgichew Demeke (2009) points out that “the history of written Amharic stretches back to the thirteenth century, with lyrics praising the deeds of Emperor Amda Seyon (1314-1344)” (p. 221). Historians point out that Amharic gained its status as an official written and spoken language in Ethiopia through the ‘impetus’ of Emperor Tewdros (Bahru Zewde 1991), representing ancient forms of language policy and planning. In light of these longstanding and complex questions, and as critically necessary contextual grounding prior to discussing the particular situation of the Irob speakers of Saho in Tigray, this chapter takes a comprehensive approach to language policy and planning in Ethiopia in the context of various historical and sociopolitical themes and patterns in the country.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4_2

29

30

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

2.2

Language Policy and Planning in Pre-1991 Ethiopia

The history of language, and thus language policy and practice, goes back to the history of human existence. Therefore, if we ask ourselves what language or languages were used for various domains of life in the sixteenth century in Ethiopia, any answer would reveal the existence of language policies and practices. This discussion focuses on the history of language policy and practices in education. The introduction of schooling in Ethiopia in 1908 included the introduction of the use of foreign tongues in education (as subjects as well as the medium of instruction, MOI). Thus, Italian, French, and English were used at various times and sometimes simultaneously during the inception periods of modern education. Yet, only English continued to be used throughout education history in Ethiopia, until the present time. The role of English as an MOI and as a subject at all levels of education continued until 1958–1959, when Amharic was officially declared to be the only MOI in primary education (grades 1–6). This was the result of the promulgation of the 1955 Ethiopian Constitution, which stipulated that Amharic would be the official language of the country (McNab 1988; Tsehaye Teferra 1977). Moreover, according to research conducted in the 1960s by the Department of Research and Curriculum Development, to analyze the effectiveness of English as an MOI at the primary school level, the change of MOI at the primary level from English to Amharic was due to the fact that: Children were being handicapped by having to learn in a foreign language, which more than 60 percent of them would not need to use after leaving school. Another reason given was that much of the content of the courses was incorrectly or inadequately conveyed, partly because of the language barrier (Habte 1970, p. 14).

To address the foreign language-based classroom communication barrier, the 1955 language policy put the indigenous language, Amharic, into a higher status, as the MOI in primary education. It could be argued that this policy shift was a positive move of the imperial system, liberating the Ethiopian education system from English language-based linguistic and cultural hegemony. It also demonstrated a linguistic and cultural shift that helped to bridge the linguistic and cultural content gap between children’s homes and the school. It enabled children to begin their education with a known or familiar language (Amharic spoken in many but not all homes), which was more pedagogically sound than having them begin their education with an unknown and unfamiliar language (English). This language policy of the imperial government also had the goals of integration, centralization, and modernization, which were presumed to be practical through a monolingual policy that favored the use of only one ethnic language across the country (Markakis 1974). To this end, the “one-nation one-language” nation-building ideology was further institutionalized in such a way that public institutions expressed their determination to implement it. However, Wallelign Mekonnen (1969) claims that in perpetuating such a hegemonic policy, the imperial system

2.2 Language Policy and Planning in Pre-1991 Ethiopia

31

was declaring that the only “true Ethiopian was one who spoke Amharic, listened to Amharic music. . .wore Amhara dress” (p. 4). Thus, Amharic became one of the most important symbols of national integration in the cultural sphere. It began to serve as a gatekeeper for any path of employment and schooling. Because Amharic was the language of the government, proficiency in it was necessary for involvement in the national political life (McNab 1988, p. 86). Cooper (1989) explained the educational opportunities that non-Amharic-speaking children had: “If non-Amharas want an education at public expense, they must learn Amharic” (p. 295). It was not without reason, therefore, that a foreign scholar, Donald Donham (1986), rightly commented on the overall situation as follows: “To the outside world, the language of Ethiopia is Amharic, and the history and culture of Ethiopia was that of the northern highlands” (p. 4). This policy was implemented even in Eritrea, which had used its major local languages, Tigrinya and Arabic, during its period as a colony of Italy, but was forced to stop using the local languages when it was re-united with its mother land, Ethiopia, in the 1950s. Thus, this monolingual policy in a multilingual, multiethnic, and multicultural Ethiopian society was perceived as a coercive device through which the imperial government had put the hegemony of the political elites’ language and culture, which was perceived as an internal linguistic and cultural imposition. Prah (2003) adds that denial of the ability to use the home languages/mother tongues of children in education “signifies the social and cultural inferiority of the culture and people whose mother-tongue-use is denied” (p. 17). For this reason the Liberation Fronts in Eritrea (ELF and EPLF) started their struggles in the 1960s with the objective, among many others, of freeing their people from this linguistic and cultural hegemony. That is why, “. . . when emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia pressed for policies promoting Amharic . . . speakers of Tigray, Oromo, and Somali claimed that their groups were being oppressed, and the international community was outraged” (Laitin 1992, p. xi). It is often claimed that this coercive language policy of the imperial government was one of the many causes for its overthrow (Bangay 1998). It is also claimed that the continuation of this monolingual policy after the emperor was overthrown, during the socialist regime, is one of the causes for the mushrooming of ethnically based liberation movements such as TNO (Tigray National Organization), the precursor of the TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front), the OLF (Oromo People’s Liberation Front), and others. The last few years of the Haile Selassie regime were full of political turmoil due to opposition movements from university students and other intellectuals, as well as from the society at large. The causes of the opposition were both political and social problems. One of the phrases used by the students and intellectuals was “land to the tiller,” with the goal of giving all peasants equal rights to usage of the land. Another issue that they raised, which is important to this study, was the right to the use and recognition of all languages and cultures in the country. This issue is one of the longstanding problems of the Ethiopian nationalities. These and other basic political and social questions, being spread throughout the entire society and the military, resulted

32

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

in massive protests at Addis Ababa University and throughout the capital, Addis Ababa, which led to the overthrow of the Emperor from power in 1974. However, since the students were less organized and less powerful, a military junta took advantage of this and replaced the imperial regime. The military junta, well aware of the causes for the overthrow of the imperial regime, during the very first few years of its government acted in line with the desires of the student movements and started addressing the basic sociocultural and political problems. Nationalities were, on paper, given the right to use their languages for educational, cultural, historical, and other purposes. However, the government, in practice and in its later proclamations, did what the previous government had done. Amharic was declared to be the sole MOI and the only language taught as a subject at all levels of education. The only exception to this practice was the declaration that no fewer than 15 languages would be languages of instruction in non-formal education and the national literacy campaign. Language policy for formal education has remained unchanged, despite social revolution in Ethiopia. There have been no experiments with using national languages other than Amharic in the lower levels of primary education, as might have been expected given the Post-Revolution nationalities policy (McNab 1988, p. 184). What this implies is that the Derg regime, on the one hand, due to its MarxistLeninist ideology, embraced the rights of the use of nationalities’ languages. However, the government lacked the political commitment and interest to move from a monolingual to a multilingual policy of education and administration. As a result, the government continued to use only Amharic as an MOI at the primary level of education and only English as an MOI at the junior (Grade 7 and 8), secondary, and tertiary levels of education, although studies conducted by the MOE during the Derg period also showed that use of Amharic in primary education and English in junior and secondary education as MOI were seriously affecting the quality of education. ERGESE [Evaluative Research of the General Education System of Ethiopia, government research conducted during the socialist regime to determine the quality of education in the country] noted that Amharic has affected the teaching and learning process at the primary level. [However] . . . ERGESE recommended that an additional school period be assigned for Amharic . . . . Concerning English . . . ERGESE pointed to the urgent need of replacing English with Amharic in the secondary schools . . . (Tekeste Negash 1990, p. 52).

In short, the practice of implementing Amharic-based monolingual policies in both the imperial and military eras in the multilingual country of Ethiopia led to the monopoly of Amharic in all social, political, and educational spheres and to relegation of the many other Ethiopian languages into inferior positions. The shift from English to Amharic as an MOI seems to be pedagogically advantageous, as is demonstrated in the research findings, though it seems to argue that the imperial regime had more of a political agenda. As to the socialist regime, it can be said that the government lacked the political commitment to pursue multilingual education (despite its socialist ideology), though research results revealed that Amharic as MOI had been a communication barrier for the non-Amharic students (Ministry of Education 1994, cited in McNab 1988, p. 152).

2.3 Language Policy and Planning in Post-1991 Ethiopia

2.3

33

Language Policy and Planning in Post-1991 Ethiopia

Mother tongue education policy (MTEP) was put into effect in 1991, with the coming into power of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and the toppling of the Derg regime. The “Charter” adopted by the “Conference for Peace and Democracy,” held in Addis Ababa from July 2–6, 1991, among other things, recognized the right of the nationalities to develop their history and culture as well as to use and nurture their languages. Implementation started immediately by translating textbooks in Amharic into five languages. To this end, the Ge’ez script was retained for Amharic and Tigrinya, while the Latin script was used for Oromo, Somali, Sidama, and Wolaita. This policy was further strengthened and substituted with minute changes by the New Education and Training Policy in 1994 which, among many things, allowed the use of mother tongues in primary education (grades 1–8). The shift from Amharic to a multilingual education policy was so swift that within a few short months of the inception year of the policy, some Ethiopian languages with more than one million speakers became languages of education for nearly half of the students enrolled in public primary schools (Piper 2005). Within a few years of the original shift, 20 other languages followed the same path (Brenzinger 1997; Mekonnen Alemu Yohannes 2006). Various studies of mother tongue education policy in Ethiopia generally agree concerning the pedagogical and sociocultural advantages that it has brought (Boothe and Walker 1997; Brenzinger 1997; Hoben 1995; Honig 1996; Mekonnen Alemu Gebre Yohannes 2009). Others criticize the rush in formulating and implementing the policy (Ayalew 1999; Teshome Wagaw 1999). Tekeste Negash (1996) attributes the hurry in implementing the MTEP to the buried interests of the people, which were not paid enough attention during the previous government. Daniel and Abebayehu (2006) claim that the implementation of mother tongue education policy by the regional states was so swift because the speakers were afraid that any delay in claiming their “given” rights could lead to a reversal. To conclude, the shift from English to Amharic as an MOI marked partial independence from “the British way of doing things” and thus from the indirect control of the British Empire. Furthermore, the move from an Amharic-only monolingual education policy to a multilingual one marked the government’s political commitment to move away from the past “One Nation-One Language” nationbuilding ideology. Moreover, no one can overlook the linguistic and identity revitalization and the pedagogical advantages of the multilingual education policy in Ethiopia. Yet, LPP in the Ethiopian sociolinguistic and political federal and regional contexts seems to be complicated due to overt and covert agendas and dilemmas.

34

2.4

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

Studies of Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia

Bender and colleagues conducted a sociolinguistic survey in Ethiopia between 1968 and 1970 (Bender et al. 1976). The book describes the language policy of the government and language practices across various domains of life – in the market, in courts, in the factory, in urban and rural areas, in the university, etc. The survey also documented language attitudes and the spread of Amharic in the country. It showed that multilingualism was prevalent in the market, as traders were observed using the various languages of the customers (Cooper and Carpenter 1976). It also found that multilingualism was a common practice among non-Amharic speakers in the university, where especially Tigrinya mother tongue speakers were often observed using Tigrinya (Cooper and King 1976, pp. 273–280). The study further tried to compare the impact of Amharic on the Afaan Oromoo speakers of urban and rural areas of Arusi and Kefa. It, thus, claimed that the impact of Amharic on the Afaan Oromoo speakers in urban areas was higher than its impact in the rural areas. While monolingualism (using only Afaan Oromoo) was highly prevalent in the rural areas, bilingualism (using both Afaan Oromoo and Amharic) was common in the urban areas (Cooper et al. 1976, pp. 213–243). This study largely revealed that, despite the multilingual nature of the areas surveyed, Amharic held a dominant role. The authors claim that “the unequivocal Amhara military conquest and its political supremacy” had been a key factor to the spread of Amharic” and concluded that Amharic was “an instrument of government policy, as part of an attempt to unify the country” (Cooper 1976, p. 292). Some scholars pointed out that the spread and dominance of Amharic in Ethiopia resulted from a sociopolitical locus shift in the ancient Muslim Sultanate of Showa and its cultural effects, which made Amharic appear to have an association with people and institutions of power and prestige (e.g. Mulugeta Seyoum 1985; Smith 2008). Others have argued that multilingualism was regarded as a threat to national integration in pre-1991 Ethiopia (Mekonnen Alemu Yohannes 2005; Mekonnen Alemu Gebreyohannes 2009; Mohammed Habib 2004). Others assert that the language policies of Imperial Ethiopia and Military Ethiopia had the same political agenda – an Amharic-only policy for maintaining or achieving national unity (Bender 1985; Cooper 1989; Moges Yigezu 2010; Smith 2008). Getachew Anteneh and Derib Ado (2006) further pointed out that the language policies of Emperor Tewdros, Emperor Menelik II, Emperor Haile Selasie, and Mengistu Haile Mariam were monolingual ones, while the policy of post-1991 is multilingual. Supporting this claim, Mohammed Habib (2004) claimed that Ethiopia’s political system post-1991 has brought a multilingual policy, which has resulted in uplifting the status of the previously subjugated languages. LPP studies in Ethiopia have also dealt with the attitude of people toward English and the Ethiopian languages, which at times have to further examine their educational and achievement implications. Researchers like Jeylan Wolyie Hussein (2010), Mekonnen Almu Yohannes (2005), and Heugh et al. (2007) argued that, despite the fact that English is a foreign language (not a second or familiar language

2.4 Studies of Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia

35

as it is claimed in Anglophone African countries), people have a supreme attitude toward English and its use as an education delivery medium and a very low attitude toward the use of the Ethiopian languages or the mother tongues as medium of instruction. Takkele Taddese (1983) stated that Ethiopian higher education students were observed having very low English proficiency, even though English was used as the MOI. He stated that the Ministry of Education had developed a long-term plan to substitute English with Amharic as MOI and conducted a survey to assess university faculty’s attitudes toward such a plan. He found out that all faculties but the majority of the faculty of language studies, mathematics departments, and all members of the law faculty rejected the use of Amharic as MOI, reasoning that the Amharic language lacks scientific and technological terminology and textbooks. Dereje Terefe Gemmechu’s PhD dissertation (2010), The Implementation of a Multilingual Education Policy in Ethiopia, broadly aimed to examine the implementation of a multilingual education policy in Ethiopia, and it particularly addresses the role of Afaan Oromoo as an MOI in primary education in the Oromia Regional State. The study employed a qualitative research design and revealed that Afaan Oromoo as an MOI has contributed to enhancing access to schooling, increasing the number of schools and thus increasing student enrollment, and improving the quality of learning. The study concluded that teachers, students, and parents have had “positive and favorable” attitudes toward the use of Afaan Oromoo as an MOI; however, policy implementation is not without problems. In relation to the impact of using the mother tongues as MOI, most studies have, on the one hand, revealed the educational advantages of this approach. Grade 8 students with 2–4 years of English MOI have had very low science and math achievement scores when English MOI (Heugh et al. 2007; Mekonnen Alemu Yohannes 2005; Mekonnen Alemu Gebreyohannes 2009; Teshome Nekatibeb 2007). Consequently, Tekeste Negash (2006) attributes the decline in the quality of education in Ethiopia to the use of English as MOI. Some studies have resulted in the belief that there are disadvantages to using the mother tongue as MOI. For example, Jeylan Wolyie Hussein (2010), Mekonnen Alemu Yohannes (2005), and Heugh et al. (2007) revealed that many perceive that this approach is an obstacle to students’ English proficiency. George (2002) claims that “parents in SNNPR viewed the nationality languages as diminishing the value of education for their children” (p. 18). Cohen (2007), dealing with the use of the mother tongues as MOI, contends that it restricts students’ mobility and economic opportunities. (Note: SNNPR is the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region, one of the nine ethnically based regional states of Ethiopia.) In reaction to these arguments, three scholars’ views are discussed here. Mohammed Habib (2004) pointed out what an Ethiopian scholar (Minasse Haile) told him, that under the post-1991 language policy, official use of mother tongues in instruction weakened the status of Amharic as a language of country-wide communication and as a tool of national unity. Arguing against such views, Twibell (1999, p. 425) expressed the idea that the monolingual language policy relied on a false veil of national unity, and that it was right to overcome this in the 1995 Constitution

36

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

because only through a multilingual language policy can the age-old question of the nationalities be addressed and the country achieve unity through promoting linguistic and cultural diversity (Mohammed Habib 2004). Agreeing with Twibell’s assertion, Jeylan Wolyie Hussein (2010) persuasively contends that the belief that “education through the mother tongue and political elevation of mother tongues is detrimental to the promotion of English (Amharic or mobility, etc.) is either mere linguistic chauvinism or linguistic self-denial founded on irrational theory about language, education and cognition” (p. 236). Another qualitative attitudinal study was conducted by Smith (2008). This examined the attitudes of people in SNNPR and the Oromia region toward the post-1991 LPP. She claims that Ethiopia’s post-1991 LPP is a multilingual one, beset with critical problems of implementation. For instance, although multilingualism promoted sociolinguistic identity and status of some groups, it was limited in not providing them the right and opportunity to participate in the language policymaking processes. An illustrative example is the WOGAGODA (taking the first two letters of the four languages – WOlaitta, GAmo, GOfa, DAwro) LPP and the failure of its implementation (Dea 2010). The WOGAGODA, by giving less participation to the language groups during the policy formulation and further policy phases, was doomed to failure, as it was perceived as a coercive device imposed from the top, which consequently provoked public protests and political turmoil and in turn loss of life, injury, and waste of public resources. Thus, Smith (2008) recommends that the multilingual LPP empower nationalities to have meaningful access to information, give autonomy to choose and decide, and recognise their linguistic identity and citizenship. Dea’s (2010) book chapter, “Governance, Language Politics and Education in Southern Ethiopia: The Tribulations of Inventing WOGAGODA,” has examined the practical implications of top-down policy processes in light of the creation and implementation of the homogenization of claimed mutually intelligible languages as a language policy and planning approach, which led to the creation of an Esperanto language called WOGAGODA. She claims that since the creation of WOGAGODA as MOI has “followed an excessive top-down approach,” it led to “inventing and imposing a new language on the people against their will,” which led to the concerned nationalities’ resistance to its use, and thus to the implementation of the imposed new language as an MOI. She questions whether planning a language from the top (in this case by a team of experts established to create a homogenized MOI) is appropriate. A question she asks is, “What is the limit to the power of the state and its local agents when it comes to deeply emotional issues such as language and identity?” (p. 118). The present study takes LPP as a dynamic and multilayered construct not just as a top-down and linear process, while Dea claims that intellectuals’ ‟view towards the WOGAGODA policy from the top was an imposition that disregarded too many local issues and interests (Dea 2010, p. 125). Thus, it is sound to argue that Dea’s study has taken LPP as an ideological and complex contextual process which is in line with the CLP theoretical and methodological conceptions, a point of similarity with the present study described here. But this study differs from Dea’s research by

2.4 Studies of Language Policy and Planning in Ethiopia

37

examining underpinning factors, mechanisms, and agencies for emergence and development of hegemonic and counterhegemonic LPP by the minority and majority language groups of Tigray. This approach is within divergent sociopolitical and historical contexts of pre-and post-1991 Ethiopia, whereas Dea focused on governance of language politics in relation to the causes for the local peoples’ resistance to a top-down hegemonic LPP case in North Omo Zonal Capital-Sodo. Bekale Seyoum’s (2012) PhD study has generally dealt with the language planning experiences of Pre- and post-1991 Ethiopia, with a particular emphasis on the post-1991 language planning. It employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods and claimed to have emanated from the need to develop a systematic, principled, coherent, and sustainable language planning approach to resolve the claimed existing language planning problems. It developed “a model for the ideal LP sought by the research, named the Super-Optimal Language Planning (SOLP)”. The study claims that such a model of language planning would “serve as a benchmark to evaluate the language planning experiences of the different periods in the history of Ethiopia”. Consequently, having employed the level of optimality as a research benchmark contrasting and measuring the various language experiences, Bekale Seyoum’s study claimed to have found that the post1991 language planning experience was far better than the two pre-1991 language planning experiences. Moreover, it found out that the post-1991 language planning experience was far from reaching the SOLP benchmark. Moreover, the study claimed that post-1991 language planning has lacked “systematic, theoretically sound, coherent, consistent and sustainable language planning” and the agents of language planning were “para-professionals” who had key advisory roles, though they had “little or no knowledge and skills in language planning and policy studies”. This implied that the policy decision-making agents were ill/misadvised by “these para-professional language planning practitioners”. A PhD dissertation by Yonattan Araya (2014) investigated educated peoples’ attitudes toward the present multilingual language policy and practices in Ethiopia. It consisted of discursive analyses of the opportunities and challenges of the multilingual policy for national unity and development as perceived and expressed by the research participants, educated individuals. Moreover, the study focused broadly on multilingual policy and practices across various domains and functions, such as media of instruction, administration, mass communication, and the federal government’s working language. In so doing, it employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. Yonattan Araya’s study found that the current multilingual language policy has been viewed as a positive approach to resolving linguistic domination and languagebased social stratification, though the use of Amharic as the sole working language of the federal government has been viewed negatively, especially by the Afaan Oromoo-speaking participants. The study recommended that the federal government devise a policy that designates all major Ethiopian languages and a foreign language, English, as the working language(s) of the federal government. The recommendation made by Yonattan Araya is in partial agreement with Tekeste Negash’s claim concerning use of both Amharic and Afaan Oromoo as

38

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

media of instruction across the entire education system of Ethiopia, from primary through university education. Tekeste Negash seems to have established this claim for three reasons: “more than 80 per cent of the Ethiopian people are fluent in one of the two languages, namely Amharic and Afan-Oromo” (2010, p. 21); the use of many Ethiopian languages for primary education and English for upper primary or secondary education and above has led the education system from crisis to the brink of collapse (Tekeste Negash 2006, 2010); and Amharic as a subject is not sufficient to serve as a trans-ethnic medium of communication (Tekeste Negash 2010, p. 23). Consequently, Yonattan Araya’s claim for the use of the major Ethiopian languages seems to be in line with Tekeste Negash’s contention on inclusion of Afaan Oromoo as a trans-ethnic medium of communication, which seems to confirm Messay’s argument that “only when the Oromo, together with the other Ethiopian peoples, knuckle down to the task of creating a trans-ethnic, national identity, can impersonalization, so vital to modernization, take root” (1999, p. 389, cited in Tekeste Negash 2010). In summary, LPP studies in Ethiopia have dealt with different issues. Tsehaye Teffera’s PhD dissertation (1977), consisting of a sociolinguistic survey, investigated language use and attitudes toward languages in Ethiopia. Its research site was the then Haile Sellassie I University, and the participants were university students who spoke different mother tongues. Cohen’s (2000) study focused on attitudes toward the use of the national languages in primary education in post-1991 Ethiopia, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR). Christian McNab’s PhD dissertation (1988) focused on the Derg’s language policy and formulation. Yet, these studies are of limited relevance for the present research and are not examined in great depth. This is due to different factors of scope or focus. Some of these studies focus on only one aspect of LPP, such as language attitudes; or address one specific historical period, such as the period of the Derg or the EPRDF; or don’t address LPP processes from a CLP theoretical perspective.

2.5

The Present Research

The above review of studies and research on Ethiopian language policy history, trends, and features reveals that most, if not all, earlier studies seem to have assumed that language policy and planning provides a means to solving language self-evident problems. Consequently, much of this research is characterized by LPP as a top-down process with linear policy approaches, the main steps being those of Fact Finding, Policy Formulation, Policy Implementation, and Policy Evaluation and Revision. Because they have operated with such assumptions, they have considered LPP as an objective, systematic activity or process. Most of them examined, for instance, peoples’ attitudes toward language use in education, as MOI; or compared, contrasted, or evaluated language policy formulations or implementations of a political and administrative regime or regimes of the country. A consequence of this is that they seem to fail to consider sociopolitical and historical contextual

2.5 The Present Research

39

antecedents and precedents, or even consequences, which could either explicitly or implicitly underpin LPP processes. In cases where politics and/or history of the polity or a particular language group has played crucial roles in shaping or reshaping the LPP issue under study, most previous research examinations of the Ethiopian scene have largely failed to explore the issue from theoretical orientations based on Critical Language Policy principles. For instance, though language attitude is indeed an ideological, political, and historical construct within LPP reesarch, the earlier studies on attitude toward the use of mother tongues in education in Ethiopia seem to fail to examine peoples’ positive or negative attitudes in light of their explicit or implicit sociopolitical, historical, and dynamic contextual factors, agencies, and mechanisms. Instead, they limit themselves to examining whether peoples’ attitudes are positive or negative and the linguistic and/or educational implications arising from this binary understanding of attitude. As a result, they seem to assume that LPP is an apolitical and ahistorical process. An instance of this is Bekale Seyoum’s (2012) study. This claims that the post1991 Ethiopian LPP is the best of the three administrative/political regimes that have governed LPP in the country. However, this seems to have failed to examine sociopolitical and historical contextual processes, factors, agencies, and mechanisms, drawing on CLP methodological orientations, which could (overtly or covertly) underpin the claim that the post-1991 LPP is superior to the others. The study uses a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) perspective instead of descriptively measuring/comparing the various language policies and practices through a Super Optimal Language Planning (SOLP) model. Yet, at least three of the studies reviewed above can be taken as exceptions in this regard. The first to be discussed here is Smith’s dissertation of 2008. This study focused on language politics in Ethiopia based on seeing LPP as an ideological process, shaping and being shaped by multiple contextual factors. Similarly, Yonattan Araya’s dissertation and Tekeste Negash’s book chapter examine language attitudes and language policy and practices in Ethiopia from a CDA perspective, which implies that the studies have considered LPP as a tool for power or hegemony and, thus, that they include an ideological dimension and construct in their understanding. From the perspective of the LPP process as a policy sphere of not only macro contexts and agents but also of local contexts and micro-level agents, the studies reviewed above have largely addressed broader contexts and agencies, if we are to claim that some have dealt with LPP processes (e.g. Bekale Seyoum 2012; Dereje Terefe Gemmechu 2010). While examining top-down or macro-level LPP processes and their explicit manifestations, they have been less cognizant of LPP as a multilayered, complex process with explicit and implicit manifestations or mechanisms. The only exception to this is the study by Dea (2010), which examined macro and micro level factors of the language communities’ resistance to the very top-down creation and implementation of the WOGAGODA medium of instruction policy. Nonetheless, concerning resistance to the implementation of the policy as a spontaneous or instantaneous action by the concerned nationalities, the study was limited to

40

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

examining the policy making and implementation as contextual processes from the macro/federal or Regional or Zonal and micro/localized policy levels and contexts. Examining Bekale Seyoum’s dissertation in particular, I found that it aligned with the positivist or rational approach to language policy and planning. First, claiming the complexity of language planning in Ethiopia, the study argues for the need to have a systematic, principled, and coherent and sustainable language planning approach. Second, it argues that LPP is a problem-(re)solving instrument; though from CLP theory by contrast, LPP is viewed as a policy tool to perpetuate social stratification and hierarchies of power (McCarty 2011, p. 9). Third, having claimed that language planning in Ethiopia is carried out by “para-professionals‟ with little or no knowledge of language planning, the study argues for “careful language planning,” which implies that LPP is an objective tool for resolving language problems by macro-level professionals (LPP with a top-down process) despite the contemporary view of LPP as a multilayered process, often accompanied by both top-down and bottom-up LPP processes. Fourth, the study contends that LPP is a systematic process which should not be carried out by what Bekale Seyoum calls “practitioners” or “para professionals” but rather by people with knowledge and skills in language planning and policy studies. This implies that LPP is a linear process, constituting the steps of Policy Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation. This contradicts the CLP view of LPP as a dynamic and complex contextual process with explicit and/or implicit goals or ideologies. LPP can be made in local contexts and by local or community level agents, such as micro level agents, including teachers, language activists, politicians, local institutions, or the language community. In examining how similar to or different from Bekale Seyoum’s research the present study is, Bekale Seyoum examined various LPP experiences and attitudes toward official policies and practices, as expressed or viewed by the research participants and as expressed in official policy documents. The present study seeks to examine LPP processes shaped and being shaped by various contextual factors, mechanisms, and multi-level agents, and thus differs from Bekale Seyoum’s approach, as described below. As a result, this study can be of high value to the LPP research community, because it critically addresses and adds knowledge to the contemporary, post-modern, critical LPP research concerns and orientations. Unlike Bekale Seyoum’s study, this study does not take LPP as a systematic and objective tool to resolve perceived language problems. It rather presumes that LPP is a dynamic sociopolitical and historical process. Secondly, it considers language and LPP as ideological tools perpetuating dominant ideologies and often laying the ground for tensions between conflicting policy approaches, agendas, and practices as engrained or run by different contesting language groups – minority versus majority ones. Third, this study is substantially different from Bekale Seyoum’s approach in that it examines LPP as a contextual process, which investigates the implications of various policy mechanisms and factors for the emergence and development of explicit or implicit official and resistance language policies and practices through top-down and/or bottom-up policy approaches.

2.6 Methodology

41

Finally, this study differs methodologically, since Bekale Seyoum mainly compared the three reigns of LPP through the indicator of optimality level as a research benchmark in contrasting and measuring the various language experiences. Because the present research adopts an exploratory ethnographic/qualitative research design, it examines policy-making processes carried out by two language groups of the multilingual regional state of Tigray, under the Pre-and post-1991 regimes, as divergent sociopolitical and historical contexts of Ethiopia with de jure multilingual LPP.

2.6

Methodology

This section describes in detail the specific methodological choices that characterize the research. Overall, the study is broadly located within the paradigm of exploratory, qualitative research. It employs ethnography as a method of inquiry to understand peoples’ experiences and activities in the process of initiating, developing, and practicing language in education policies and implementations. The primary goal is to critically analyze how the LPP contexts in the Tigray region of Ethiopia have emerged, in a process of examining their explicit or implicit manifestations as they shape and are shaped by macro, meso, and micro agents and levels. The study asks why these factors, processes, and manifestations have emerged and developed in the ways they have. The overall goal of these choices is to drill “beneath the surface of official policy texts to illuminate the power relations through which they are created and naturalized” (McCarty 2011, p. 3). Johnson (2009) argues that a language policy study or analysis should take the following factors into consideration: “(1) agents, (2) goals, (3) processes, and (4) discourses that engender and perpetuate the policy, and (5) the dynamic social and historical contexts in which the policy exists, keeping in mind that these categories are neither static nor mutually exclusive” (p. 156). Some CLP scholars argue that only ethnography-based research can save scholarship in the academic discipline of language planning. Canagarajah (2006) has noted that ethnography can provide a bottom-up component to top-down language planning in that “while LPP largely works in a top-down fashion to shape the linguistic behavior of the community according to the imperatives of policymakers, ethnography develops grounded theories about language as it is practiced in localized contexts” (p. 153). These points about the illuminating function of such approaches to study of LPP have led to the adoption of an ethnographic, qualitative research methodology to explore the “hows” and “whys” of the LPP contexts and the interplay between and among the macro, meso, and micro policy agents, levels, and processes in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.

42

2.6.1

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

Data Collection Methods

An important consideration to keep in mind in LPP research is that language policy and planning aims and goals of various authorities may not be explicitly stated in official government documents. The absence of specific mention of LPP does not mean, however, that the polity lacks a language policy position, rather that the language policy might need to be inferred from the individuals’ and agencies’ ideologies and practices. However, language policies with hidden agendas or aims, which are not declared officially and may not be found in official government documents, can be learned from practices on the ground, as they are actually implemented in various domains of life. Thus, aware of this dimension of LPP data collection and analysis, the methods used in this study go beyond looking for and examining official policy texts and documents. This study primarily employs interviews, observations, open-ended questionnaires, and document analysis as key methods of data collection in order to unravel the real language policies and practices of the country. Data include not only written texts but also oral texts, from formal and informal interviews, conversations, speeches, media interviews, and audio/video-recorded archives. Interviews Interviews were conducted to investigate attitudes toward and use of minority languages and the majority language in education. To this end, interview guides were developed for formal, in-depth interviews and also for more informal interviews. In conducting the formal, in-depth interviews, structured and semistructured interview approaches were used, depending on the situations for the interviews and the interviewees. Structured interviews were used to assess students’ and teachers’ language attitude and preferences, the language expected to be used, and the language actually used across the various domains of life – at home, in the community, in the classroom, and outside the classroom and school contexts. Informal interviews were used when situations allowed and contributed to identification of preliminary information on general LPP issues related to the study: key informants and pertinent documents, archives, letters, and memos. The informal interviews permitted participants more freedom of expression to bring out novel ideas and experiences and also helped me to check on and verify specific issues that arose in the later phases of the study. Open-Ended Questionnaires To allow research participants to voice their feelings without the intervention of the researcher (Creswell 2005) open-ended questionnaires were adopted. These were used as substitute instruments to in-depth interviews when conducting an in-depth interview was not possible for a participant. Document Analysis Document analysis was a key source of data for this study. Data included official documents (Constitutions, proposals, declarations, written policy documents) and other, less official documents (newspapers, pamphlets, reports, memos, letters, minutes of meetings, political programs, archival materials,

2.6 Methodology

43

and recordings). The purpose was to examine the explicit or implicit manifestations of language policy, as stated in the documents, and their implications. Observation Observation was used to gather impressionistic data on language use and practices across various domains of the language community’s life and purposes, such as in education, in the community, and in formal and informal contexts and functions. Three types of observation checklists were developed, to be used in the classroom, the school, and the community. Two rounds of observations were conducted. The first one was conducted during the first phase of the study and helped me to (1) get acquainted with the research site; (2) pilot and refine the classroom observation checklist; (3) identify possible sources of data and collect some preliminary data; and (4) collect clear and concrete evidence pertaining to some of the misinformation that I had gained from pre-field work informants (e.g., “The Saho language has started to be used as an MOI of primary education of the Irob Community”). The second round of observations was conducted during the fourth phase of the study, at the same time that I was conducting the structured and in-depth interviews with the various stakeholders. As a result, a total of 10 classrooms were observed, and more global observations were conducted in 2 schools and in the urban capital town of the Irob Wereda. Notes were taken during the observations. The observations had the following purposes, as shown in Fig. 2.1.

2.6.2

Data Collection Procedures

In developing data collection instruments, various steps were followed. Preliminary discussions were held with a member of the Saho LPP technical committee, the Irob Language and Cultural Association chairperson, and a Tigrinya curriculum developer. This was done to grasp issues pertaining to the LPP processes undertaken by the majority and minority language groups and to develop the instruments based on practical and specific activities and processes. Preliminary analysis of documents available during the time (the FDRE Constitution, the TNRST Constitution, the MOE’s NETP, etc.) was done to refine and further develop the instruments. The instruments were developed and given to five university language educators (four Tigrinya and one Saho native speakers) to check their validity, and the instruments were further refined based on the comments given. Six types of in-depth interview protocols on the Tigrinya and Saho LPP processes were developed, and six open-ended questionnaires, to be used when conducting interviews would be impossible or difficult. These instruments are provided in Appendices 14–25. Data collection was conducted in four phases during 2013, 2014, and 2015.

44

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

Observation Type

Rationale and Points of Focus

Classroom Observations

To assess classroom language practices vis-à-vis the language policy: In the teaching-learning process, as used by the teacher; between teacher and students; between/among students, etc. In the classroom linguistic landscape, as shown in posters, teaching aids, notices, etc.

School Observations

To assess outside school language practices vis-à-vis the language policy: In outside-or-class communication, as used between and among teachers, students, teachers and students, etc. In the school linguistic landscape, as shown in offices, notices, the library, etc.

Community Observations

To assess community language practices vis-à-vis the language policy: Community language practices, language used in formal or informal contexts Community linguistic landscape, as shown in public advertisements, businesses (e.g. hotels, cafes), government offices, billboards/advertisement boards, personal names, place names, etc.

Fig. 2.1 Observation types and rationale

Phase I – September – December, 2013 This phase served as an entry or introductory phase of the study and had aimed at getting a general overview of the research site; creating contact with possible research participants and the institutions; and holding informal discussions on issues of concern. These aims were also pursued in subsequent phases. For instance, I learned that a research participant who in Phase I was the head of the pre-1991 TPLF Education Department, later in Phase II was also the TRSEB Head and EPRDF representative during the TGE Policy guideline development process. This led to redesigning the already-developed interview protocol for this particular research participant. The instruments were used to collect preliminary data; check the validity of the instruments; and locate documents, reports, etc. Although around 40 potential participants were identified, 33 individuals from key LPP agencies – TPLF, TRSEB, MU, Adwa TTI, ILCA or the Saho LPP Committees, and CAT – were contacted. They were drawn from 22 or more positions or roles within the regional LPP processes. In this phase, 25 informal interviews or discussions were conducted, and 14 questionnaires were distributed, out of which 9 were collected.

2.6 Methodology

45

Phase II – May, June, September, and October, 2014 This phase involved conducting in-depth interviews and gathering data through questionnaires and document analysis. Thus, four audio recorded in-depth interviews were conducted with four participants who have had six different roles. Three interviews were conducted with three participants who have had six different roles but were not willing to be audio recorded. The other method used was a questionnaire. It was used since one of the identified research participants, a TPLF historian, was not willing to take part as an interviewee but as a respondent to a corresponding questionnaire. During this phase I also collected and analyzed further documents, such as four different Minutes of Saho LPP Community Meetings and two official letters on the Saho LPP. Phase III – November and December, 2014 Interviews were conducted to verify some of the data collected earlier that seemed to have conflicting ideas or gaps. Phase IV – 20 Working Days in 2015 A sociolinguistic survey was conducted to assess language attitudes and use in some selected (politically convenient) areas and schools in the Irob Wereda; fill in data identified through in-depth interviews with key individuals or agencies; observe actual language use and linguistic landscapes in the Irob Wereda; collect video archives of various LPP process community meetings and conferences; and verify some of the questionable previously collected data. Due to the sensitivity of the Wereda, we had only 20 days (often mornings) in the capital of the Irob Wereda and a nearby rural school located in the pre-war capital of the Wereda. We stayed at night in the capital of the Eastern Zone of Tigray-Adi-grat. Consequently, during this phase, we conducted structured interviews with 80 students and 20 teachers in two primary schools (one urban and one rural school), approximately 8–10 structured interviews per day; some classroom and school observations; and in-depth interviews with the school directors and teachers, Wereda officials (Irob Wereda Council’s Speaker of the House, Irob Wereda Communication and Information Office Head, and Irob Wereda Communication and Information Office Journalist), and other key informants. In addition, observations were made of the linguistic landscape of the capital and the schools visited. Writing notes was an ongoing activity during data collection and analysis. After submitting a report to my supervisor in November 2014 and receiving comments from him, I further identified some critical gaps in the data, which required carrying out the data verification process described above.

2.6.3

Data Analysis

Data analysis started at the early stages of data collection and included data structuring and clarifying, organization, and condensation of the transcribed interview data, questionnaires, informal interviews, and document analysis. Key thematic categories were identified to frame a preliminary thematic framework. Further data

46

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

was then collected, transcribed, manipulated, interpreted, and integrated into the preliminary framework. Preliminary analyses of the transcriptions of the audiorecorded interviews, field notes, questionnaires, and document analyses complemented by my insider status in the region and enabled me to interpret the oral and textual discourses with insight. Since the framework was preliminary, I engaged in further processing, such as reading and rereading, constructing and deconstructing meanings, and writing and rewriting activities. Thus, the preliminary framework of analysis was subject to further critical analysis. In critically examining and analyzing the data and triangulating them from CLP perspectives, critical discourse analysis and inter-textual methods of analysis were used.

2.6.4

Research Participants

A study sample is often a subject of contestation, and the number of and “criteria for participant selection grow out of different assumptions, depending on the research paradigm and the kind of study” (Hatch 2002, p. 48). Qualitative researchers often argue that “no direct relationship exists between the number of participants and the quality of a study” (Hatch 2002, p. 48). Given the goals of this study, selection of participants considered the roles that they have had in the emergence and development of the LPP activities and whether they have been either participants in the LPP process or in a position to make policy decisions or were well-informed about or experienced with the key language policy making and implementation processes. Thus, purposive sampling was used to select the participants, through collaboration with the gatekeepers and participants. Individuals and sites were used, because they were believed to be potential sources of information that would generate general insights into and understanding of the issues of concern. Thus, participants represented different corners of life: majority and minority language speakers, policy agents, political activists, university students, teachers, other educators, parents, and students. The number of the participants depended on the richness of information and availability of pertinent documents that they had access to. Critical sampling was also employed, with the assumption that there are specific key policy agents behind the LPP contexts and their participation in the study would enrich understanding of the central phenomenon in exceptional ways.

2.6.5

Research Site

The research site was the National Regional State of Tigray, a multilingual and multicultural region constituting three nationalities: Tigray, Irob, and Kunama, officially recognized in the regional Constitution. The study focuses on language policy making by the Tigrayan and Irob nationalities and on the Tigrinya and Saho

2.6 Methodology

47

Fig. 2.2 Map of Tigray and the Irob Wereda

languages. These were selected because individuals, communities, and institutions representing these two nationalities have been key language policy players in resisting, creating, perpetuating, and negotiating hegemonic and counter-hegemonic language policies. My insider status in the region led me to conduct the study in Tigray (Fig. 2.2).

2.6.6

Nationalities and Languages

Tigray and the Tigray Nationality The Tigray National Regional State is located in the Northern part of Ethiopia. It is neighbored by Eritrea to the North, the Sudan to the West, and the Afar and Amhara regional states to the East and South West, respectively. The regional state constitutes three nationalities according to the regional Constitution and four more – the Amhara, Afar, Agaw and Oromo – according to the 2007 census data (Central Statistical Agency 2010). In 2007, the population of the region was around 4.3 million, of which the vast majority, 96.55%, were of Tigrayan nationality, whose language is Tigrinya. Orthodox is the dominant religion, which is followed by the majority of the Tigray people. Tigrayans are also found in Eritrea and believed to be the dominant group in Eritrea. The term Tigray is used in Ethiopia for both the people and the regional state. Irob Nationality The people of Irob nationality reside in Irob Wereda of Eastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Irob land shares boundaries with Eritrea and Afar regions

48

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

and with the neighboring Weredas of Tigray. The area is estimated to be 930 sq. km (9,300,000 ha), and its geographic location is situated between 14_2200 N to 14_4000 N and 39_2800 E to 39_5900 E. The population of Irob is about 30,517, which is 0.71% of the regional population of 4,314,456 (Central Statistical Agency 2010). The majority of the Irob are followers of the Roman Catholic Church. The Irob are claimed to be among the first people to accept the Catholic religion in Ethiopia, which often claimed to have given them the earliest access to modern or Western education in Ethiopia. Lideta Mariam (St. Mary) church of Alitena in the central Irob area was established in 1846 and is described as “the symbol of the beginning of Catholic Christianity in East Africa” (UNMEE1 newspaper, January 2003). The Lideta Mariam school of Alitena, which was established in 1876, is the first Ethiopian elementary school to provide modern education in Ethiopia. The mother tongue of people of Irob nationality is Saho. Along with Ethiopian languages such as Afar, Oromo, Somali, and Agaw, Saho belongs to the Cushitic branch within the broad family of Afro-Asiatic languages, previously known as Hamito-Semitic languages. Saho is also spoken across the border in Eritrea; the number of Saho speakers in Eritrea is estimated to be around 200,000. In Chap. 1, the field of LPP is described and discussed, with a view to tracing its origins and key issues. This maps out the academic field of investigation and the conceptual frameworks applied to the study. Chapter 2 provides the essential contextual information of Ethiopia and Tigray Regional State, briefly tracing the regimes of language policy and the role of LPP in various critical chapters in the history and contemporary life of Ethiopia. Chapter. 2 describes the research methods and conceptual tools that have been utilised in the research and discusses key previous research studies of LPP in the Ethiopian context, locating the present study in relation to these by noting similarities and differences. In Chap. 3, the focus of the writing shifts to a detailed examination of the phases, politics, and themes of the practice and promulgation of LPP in Ethiopia, with specific reference to the situation of the Tigray region. The critical overarching themes that characterise the extensive activity of LPP in the specific setting of Tigray are conflict, resistance, and tension, in a dynamic and continuous practice of decision making about questions of language and identity.

1 United Nations Military for Ethiopia and Eritrea, a UN mission army assigned within the Eritrean border as a result of the border conflict between the two countries.

References

49

References2 Ayalew S. 1999. The impact of federalization on education in Ethiopia. Unpublished manuscript. Addis Ababa University. Bahru Zewde. 1991. A history of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1974. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Bangay, C. 1998. Education in context: priorities in the development of educational Provision in rural Ethiopia. Cambridge: Cambridge Education Consultants, Demeter House, CBI 2RS. Bekale Seyoum. 2012. Language diversity and the challenges of government language planning in Ethiopia. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Addis Ababa University. Bender, M. L. 1985. Ethiopian language policy, 1974–1981. Anthropological Linguistics, 27(3), 273–279. Bender, M. L., Bowen, J. D., Cooper, C. A., and Ferguson, C. A. 1976. (Eds.), Language in Ethiopia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boothe, K. and Walker, R. 1997. Mother tongue education in Ethiopia: From policy to implementation. Language Issues and Language Planning, 21(1), 1–20. Brenzinger, M. 1997. An evaluative account of Ethiopia’s new language policy. In M. Putz (Ed.), Language choices: Conditions, constraints, and consequences (pp. 207–221). Boston, MA: John Benjamin University. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Blackwell. Central Statistical Agency. 2010. Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census. Addis Ababa. Cohen, Gideon P.E. 2000. Identity and opportunity: The implications of using local languages in the primary education system of the SNNPR, Ethiopia. (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) University of London. Cohen, Gideon P.E. 2007. Mother tongue and other tongue in primary education: Can equity be achieved with the use of different languages? In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and development: Africa and beyond. Proceedings of the 7thInternational Language and Development Conference (pp. 62–75). British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/Language %20%26%20Development%20Africa%20and%20Beyond.pdf Cooper, R. L. 1976. The spread of Amharic. In M. L. Bender, J. D. Bowen, C. A. Cooper, and C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in Ethiopia (pp. 289–323). Oxford: University Press. Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper, R. L., and Carpenter, S. 1976. Language in the market. In M. L. Bender, J. D. Bowen, C. A. Cooper, and C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in Ethiopia (pp. 244–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper, R. L., and King, M. 1976. Language and university students. In M. L. Bender, J. D. Bowen, C. A. Cooper, and C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in Ethiopia (pp. 273–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooper, R. L., Singh, B. N., and Ghemazion, A. 1976. Mother tongue and other tongue in Kefa and Arusi. In M. L. Bender, J. D. Bowen, C. A. Cooper, and C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in Ethiopia (pp. 213–243). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Creswell, J.W. 2005. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative esearch. New Jersey: Pearson Education International. 2

The convention for citation of Ethiopian authors is followed here for Ethiopian names, which is an individual’s personal name followed by a separate patronym (the given or first name of a person’s father) followed in some cases by an avonymic, or an earlier male ancestor. These are not separated by a comma or other punctuation. Unless an indivudal has modified his or her name to prefer initials for some components, all the relevant names are used in citation and referencing.

50

2 The Tigray Region of Ethiopia

Daniel A., and Abebayehu T. 2006. Instructional language policy in Ethiopia: Motivated by politics or the educational needs of children? Planning and Changing Journal, 37(3/4), 151–168. Dea, D. 2010. Governance, language politics, and education in southern Ethiopia: The tribulations of inventing WoGaGoDa. In P. Milkias and M. Kebede (Eds.), Education, politics, and social change in Ethiopia (pp. 177–128). Los Angeles, CA: Tsehai Publishers. Dereje Terefe Gemmechu. 2010. The implementation of a multilingual education policy in Ethiopia: The case of Afaan Oromooo in primary schools of Oromia Regional State. (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) University of Jyväskylä. Donham, D. 1986. Problems in using English as a medium of instruction in the junior secondary schools of Ethiopia. (Unpublished manuscript.) University of Nairobi. Ethiopia Population. 2018. Worldometers.http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ethio pia-population George, E. S. 2002. Reaching out to marginalized populations through curriculum reform: A discussion based on research and experiment in Southern Ethiopia. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Orlando, Florida, 6–9 March. Getachew Anteneh and Derib Ado. 2006. Language policy in Ethiopia: History and current trends. Ethiopian Journal of Education, 2(1), 37–62. Girma Awgichew Demeke. 2009. The origin of Amharic. Red Sea Press: Trenton. Habte Mariam M. 1970. Amharic as the medium of instruction in primary schools in Ethiopia. In T. P. Gorman (Ed.), Language in education in Eastern Africa (pp. 13–17). Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Hatch, J. A. 2002. Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: State University of New York. Heugh, K., Benson, C., Berhanu Bogale, and Mekonnen Alemu G. Yohannes. 2007. Final report: Study of medium of instruction in primary schools in Ethiopia. (Commissioned by the Ministry of Education). Unpublished manuscript. Hoben, S. 1995. The language of education in Ethiopia: Empowerment or imposition? In J. Hutchison, J. Yanco, and S. Hoben (Eds.), Issues in language education (pp. 182–197). African Studies Center: Boston. Honig, B. 1996. Education language policy and teacher training in Ethiopia. Language and Education, 10(1), 1–11. Jeylan Wolyie Hussein. 2010. English Supremacy in Ethiopia: Autoethnographic Reflections. In K. Huegh and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education works: From periphery to the centre (pp. 224–238). Hyderabad: Orient BlackSwan. Johnson, D. C. 2009. Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159. Laitin, David D. 1992. Language repertoires and state construction in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Markakis, J. 1974. Ethiopia: Anatomy of a traditional polity. Oxford. Clarendon Press. McCarty, T. L. 2011. Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge. McNab, C. 1988. Language policy and practice: Implementation dilemmas in Ethiopian education. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University. Mekonnen Alemu G. Yohannes. 2005. Multilingualism in Ethiopia: Sociocultural and pedagogical implications of mother tongue education in Ethiopia. (Unpublished M. Phil. thesis). University of Oslo. Mekonnen Alemu G. Yohannes. 2006. Multilingual policy of education for revitalizing marginalized indigenous languages in Ethiopia. In M. Ostler and N. Crawhall (Eds.), Creating outsiders: Endangered languages, migration, and marginalization (pp. 124–128). Bath, UK: Foundation for Endangered Languages. Mekonnen Alemu Gebreyohannes. 2009. Implications of the use of mother tongue versus English as language of instruction for academic achievement in Ethiopia. In B. Brock-Utne and

References

51

I. Skuttum (Eds.), Language and education in Africa: A comparative and transdisciplinary analysis (pp.189–199). UK: Symposium Books. Ministry of Education. 1994. The new Ethiopian education and training policy. Addis Ababa. Moges Yigezu. 2010. Language ideology and challenges of multilingual education in Ethiopia: The case of Harari region. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA). Mohammed Habib. 2004. Issues and trends in the development of language policies of the Ethiopian government since 1941. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Institute of Language Studies (pp. 1–5). Mulugeta Seyoum. 1985. The development of national language in Ethiopia: A study of language use and policy. (PhD dissertation). Georgetown University. Piper, B. 2005. English or local: Language choices and achievement in Ethiopia. Paper presented at the CIES March, 2005 Annual Conference; Stanford University, California: Palo Alto. Prah, K. 2003. Going native: Language of instruction for education, development and African emancipation. In B. Brock-Utne, Z. Desai, and M. Qorro (Eds.), Language of instruction in Tanzania and South Africa (LOITASA) (pp. 14–31). Dar es Salaam: EandD Limited. Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (Eds.) 2017. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Twentieth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com. Smith, L. 2008. The politics of contemporary language policy in Ethiopia. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage. Takkele Taddese. 1983. Why not the LOI at AAU be Amharic? (in Amharic). Journal of the Institute of Language Studies, 1(1), 3–15. Tekeste Negash. 1990. The crisis of Ethiopian education: Some implications for nation building. Uppsala Reports on Education, No. 29. Uppsala University, Sweden. Tekeste Negash. 1996. Rethinking education in Ethiopia. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Tekeste Negash. 2006. Education in Ethiopia: From crisis to the brink of collapse. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Tekeste Negash. 2010. The curse of English as a medium of instruction in the Ethiopian education system. In P. Milkias & M. Kebede (Eds.), Education, politics and social change in Ethiopia (pp. 9–19). California: Tsehai Publishers. Teshome Nekatibeb. 2007. The impact of learning in the mother tongue on academic achievement: A case study of grade 8 students in Ethiopia. In C. Hywel (Ed.), Language and development: Africa and beyond (pp. 65–78). Addis Abba: British Council. Teshome Wagaw. 1999. Conflict of ethnic identity and the language of education policy in contemporary Ethiopia. Northeast African Studies, 6(3), 75–88. Tsehaye Teferra. 1977. A sociolinguistic survey of language use and attitudes towards language in Ethiopia: Implications for language policy in education. (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Twibell, T. S. 1999. Constitutional law: The structure of the Ethiopian government and the new constitution’s ability to overcome Ethiopia’s problems. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 21(3), 399–466. United Nations Military for Ethiopia and Eritea (UNMEE) Newspaper. 2003, January. Wallelign Mekonnen. 1969. Questions of nations and nationalities. The Struggle, 5(5). Haile Sellassie I University. Yonattan Araya. 2014. Multilingual language policy and language practice in Ethiopia: Opportunities and challenges for national unity and development. (Unpublished PhD. dissertation). Addis Ababa University.

Chapter 3

Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

3.1

Introduction

Language, as a dynamic communication tool, has existed since humans inhabited the earth, and people who speak different languages have co-existed. Dynasties and empires have functioned with non-linguistic ethnic-based systems of governance, and, in many places, as long as “taxes were paid, all was well” (May 2012, p. 68). In pre-nineteenth century Ethiopia, it seems reasonable to claim that individuals and ethnic groups who spoke different languages co-existed peacefully, regardless of their language differences. With this assumption in mind, it is sound to ask, What has made language not simply a neutral tool for communication but a tool for power? In other words, what factors have allowed language and language policies to become a tool to control or perpetuate language behaviors or practices of the dominant group (s) or the authorities in power? In addressing these questions, scholars claim that the emergence of the nation-state at the end of the nineteenth century led languages to serve as an ideological tool in national building efforts (Makoni 1998; May 2006). With a focus on the history of language policy in Ethiopia, this chapter describes the language in education policies that have been put in place since the introduction of schooling in Ethiopia in 1908. It describes a shift from the teaching and learning of foreign languages to the use of an Ethiopian language, Amharic (Amharic-only policy), and the consideration of many Ethiopian languages (mother tongue education policy). Behind official policies were found implicit policies and practices, which stood in contradiction to officially declared policies. Thus, we explored the complexity of navigating language policies as “statements of declaration,” explicitly stated in policy documents or Constitutions, and as implemented policies, manifested on the ground, in practice, through unofficial policies, practices, grassroots reactions, and resistance. This chapter traces the trajectory and paths of this complexity in Pre- and-post1991 Tigray across the multiple sociopolitical and historical contexts of Ethiopia and © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4_3

53

54

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

the ways that minority language groups resisted and struggled for their language spaces and representations, while the majority (dominant) language groups perpetuated a de facto continuation of their language hegemony. The chapter is organized according to a critical dividing line in contemporary Ethiopian political history and the two crucial periods of language in education policy development that resulted: pre-1991 (being the period between 1974 and 1991) and post-1991. The pre-1991 period reveals how and why Tigrinya came to be a medium of instruction (MOI) in schools, as a resistance language policy emerged and developed in the Hara Merets of Tigray. The post-1991 period reveals two important language policy contexts in Tigray: the emergence of only Tigrinya as an MOI in the context of a multilingual language policy in Tigray; and the emergence of a resistance language policy making process, led by the regional minority language group, the Irob people. After reviewing overall trends in the country and the Tigray region, I describe specific patterns observed in the communities, schools, classes, teachers, and students in the study.

3.2

Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

This section describes why and how Tigrinya as an MOI was created and appropriated first as a counter hegemonic policy (pre-1991) and later as a de facto continuation of a regional policy (only Tigrinya as an MOI) and why and how this has led to a continuation of resistance by the Saho language minority. It traces the emergence and development of hegemonic and counter hegemonic language in education policies and practices in pre-1991 Ethiopia, in Tigray’s sociopolitical and historical contexts. Based on interviews with study participants and documents collected (see Chap. 2 for a description of the data collected), the chapter describes how minority language groups can resist and demand or struggle for their language spaces or representations while the majority (dominant) language groups can perpetuate and struggle for a continuation of their language hegemony.

3.2.1

The Amharic-Only Policy: Explicit and Implicit Manifestations

Amharic has had long years of historical privilege, not only as a written Ethiopian language but also as an official language of the country, since the reign of Emperor Tewdros II (1855–1868). Between 1868 and 1871, Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

55

Tekle Giyorgis II. Giyorgis seized power in 1868 by declaring himself Emperor, following the suicide of Emperor Tewdros II, who killed himself rather than be captured by British military forces. Giyorgis ruled Ethiopia very briefly, without having fully united the nation under his rule. In 1871, he lost a definitive battle against the future Emperor Yohannes IV, who declared himself emperor after blinding and imprisoning Tekle Giyorgis II (Marcus 1995). Emperor Yohannes IV (1871–1889), would not have continued to employ Amharic, but his mother tongue Tigrinya, as the language of the imperial court and administration, which was based in Tigray. The early twentieth century in Ethiopia saw language beginning to be used as an ideological tool in nation building efforts. The following memorandum of the Imperial Ministry of Pen (1933) demonstrates the ideological foundations of the imperial monolingual language policy. (S1)

The strength of a country lies in its unity, and unity is born of common language, customs, and religion. (S2)Thus, to safeguard the ancient sovereignty of Ethiopia and to reinforce its unity, our language and our religion (emphasis added) should be proclaimed over the whole of Ethiopia, without which unity will never be attained. (S3)Both Amharic and Ge’ez should be made official languages, for secular as well as religious affairs, all pagan languages should be banned (emphasis added) (reported in Bahru Zewde 2002, p. 140).

This statement reflects an ideology that underpins language as an ideological/ political tool to maintain the unity of the polity and describes the need for a hegemonic policy pertaining to language and religion. While Amharic as the dominant language and Ethiopian Orthodoxy as the religion are cited as “our language and our religion,” other Ethiopian languages and beliefs or religions are referred as “pagan languages,” which need to be abolished. We see here an example of what Ricento (2006) describes as conflicting notions of identity, with “us” (the good, “insider” group) making decisions about “them,” (the bad, “outsider” group) (p. 232). Thus, this statement is not just about language but also about power and ideology, which was perpetuated through language policy and planning. Although this statement could be understood as the expression of the personal beliefs or ideologies of the author, it became an influential construct of the imperial language ideology and policy. It was continued in the revised Constitution of 1955, which explicitly declared that “Amharic is the official language of the Empire” (Negarit Gazeta 1955, § 125; 15th Year, No. 2, Article 125). Unlike the imperial regime, the Derg (which ruled Ethiopia after the fall of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974 until 1987) represented university students, considered “the question of nationalities” as foundational to its work, and took socialism as its political program and ideology for government. As an explicit manifestation of this revolutionary thought, the Derg’s political Program of the National Democratic Revolution of Ethiopia stipulated: The right of self-determination of all nationalities will be recognized and fully respected. No nationality will dominate another one since the history, culture, language, and religion of each nationality will have equal recognition in accordance with the spirit of socialism. . . . Given Ethiopia’s existing situation, the problem of nationalities can be resolved if each

56

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP nationality is accorded full rights of self-government. This means that each nationality will have regional autonomy to decide on matters concerning its internal affairs. Within its environs, it has the right to determine the contents of its political, economic, and social life, use its own languages, and elect its own leaders and administrators to head its own internal organs. (Program of the National Democratic Revolution 1976, p. 14)

The Derg’s political program was a mirror image of the program of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP, 1974–1991),1 a revolutionary movement led largely by prominent political activists in the student movement. The August 1975 EPRP Program stated that the objective of the party was: To develop all the languages of the various nationalities; to develop those with scripts and establish as well as develop those without; to cultivate all the beneficial cultures and customs of every nationality on an equal basis and to eradicate discrimination against any nationality and abolish oppression of nationalities, including the policy of forcible Amharization (EPRP Program, August 1975 cited in Tsehaye Teferra 1977, p. 85).

The political program of the Derg shows that it agreed with the ideological foundations of the university students’ movement. In its attempt to show that the student movement’s revolutionary thoughts and ideology were the foundations to the government’s program, it explicitly stated them in its political program and policy directive documents. The Derg’s program also shows an official ideological shift in Ethiopia from a monolingual language policy, “One Language-One Nation,” to a multilingual language policy, “Unity With Diversity.” The Derg, with its focus on socialist ideology, moved the country’s government system from a feudalist/imperial system to socialism. The Derg started to implement its programs immediately, with the multilingual National Adult Literacy Program and Mass Literacy Campaign in 15 Ethiopian languages2 – Amharic, Oromigna, Tigringna, Wolaita, Somali, Hadiya, Kambata, Kunama, Tigre, Sidama, Silte, Gedio, Afar, Kefa-Mochi, and Saho. The Derg was commited to addressing the key cause of the revolution, concerning Questions of Nationalities, and attempted to move the country from a “prison of nationalities” to a “nation of nationalities” (to use M Mekonnen’s, 1969, phrases). With this political ideology and language policy and practice, the Derg was thought by many to be the force that would resolve the presumed long-time problems of the country and the puzzle of the “questions of nations and nationalities.” EPRP is one among others, and probably the first, revolutionary movement that evolved out of the HSIU student movement. It started its armed struggle in the North-East part of Tigray, in a place called ASSIMBA probably due to the mountainous nature of the place or because it was led by Dr. Tesfay Debessay, who belongs to the region, the Irob area, in which ASSIMBA is found. TPLF started its armed struggle in the Western part of Tigray in a place called DEDEBIT. The difference between the two is often claimed as an ideological one in that when EPRP assumed the revolution largely as a class struggle, the TPLF took the revolution mainly as a nationalist-oriented one. 2 Among the 15 languages proclaimed as MOI of the Derg’s National Adult Literacy Program, three of the Tigray languages – Tigrinya, Saho, and Kunama – were actually used. All 15 languages were made to employ the Ge’ez script, which resulted in less attention being given to the linguistic features of each of the languages and was used as a way to strengthen national unity through a “OneScript One-Nation‟ ideology, implicitly substituting the “One-Language One-Nation” ideology. 1

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

57

However, despite the fact that a multilingual language in education policy had been explicitly stated in general and implemented in the adult literacy program in particular, a monolingual language in education policy continued in the formal primary school system. Only Amharic continued as the language of instruction in primary education. The Derg, having failed to put its explicit multilingual language policy in practice in the formal education system, seemed to be in conformity with the ideological foundation of monolingual education as an implicit agenda, and thus with the de facto continuation of a hegemonic language policy, regardless of its explicit ideology stipulated in its political program. In relation to the continuation of Amharic as an MOI, the Derg, through a document entitled Objectives and Directives of Education by the Ministry of Education, declared that “Amharic shall be the language of instruction until such time that there are teachers and textbooks in other languages (Ministry of Education 1980, p. 35). In that document, the Derg also called for the establishment of a language academy that would hasten the development of the remaining Ethiopian languages as MOIs. These two policy statements reveal that monolingual language in education was the Derg’s implicit language policy, with implicit ideologies behind it. The explicit reason for the implicit policy was “until such time” that other Ethiopian languages would have the required human and material resources, for which the then “not-yet established language academy” was given responsibility. Writing about this time, Bender (1985) contends that “the military government. . .has followed much the same language policy as its predecessor: Promoting Amharic as national language. However, it is moderated by a self-conscious attitude of attention to minorities and is cloaked in so-called Marxist-Leninist Propaganda” (p. 273). Consequently, many began to question the agenda behind the Derg’s advocacy and hurry to implement the multilingual adult literacy program, for which the university students were planned to be the teachers and key policy implementers or agents. The continuation of the Amharic-only MOI policy also made many suspicious of the Derg’s program. In relation to this, one of the people I interviewed, who was part of the TUSA (Tigray University Students’ Association), expressed the majorities’ suspicions about the Derg’s program through a Tigrinya speaker, saying, “Tesgibeka Kicha ab Mokulea kela Tiflet.” – “The beginning is a sign of the end.” (Tigray People’s Liberation Front, TPLF, Member Interview, October 2013). He explained it as follows: The Derg was not part of the revolutionary movement. Thus, it just hijacked the revolution from us. But, it was impossible to hijack the ideological foundations of the revolution, although it could simply advocate so. And, we observed the Derg, even in its initial period, being in contradiction with its proclaimed program. So, from the very beginning we, as TUSA members, were divided on the issue of the real objective of the mass literacy campaign. But, after long discussions we came to agree with the Derg’s objectives: to use the mass literacy as an opportunity to organize ourselves, to establish urban clandestine cells, and to sensitize the Tigray people, especially the peasants, on the need for Tigray nationalist armed struggle (TPLF Member Interview, October, 2013).

58

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

3.2.2

Amharic-Only Policy: Implications for the Tigrayan People and Language

The imperial Constitution brought a shift from a foreign language-based education system (especially in grades 1–6) to an Ethiopian language, Amharic-based education system, as described in Chap. 2. This revitalized the Ethiopian language in education and, with it, in Ethiopian culture. On the other hand, the use of only Amharic, regardless of the diverse linguistic ecology of the country, has been claimed as a cause of linguistic hegemony and language-based inequality and has been a cause for ire. As a result, the Tigrinya language and its speakers have experienced severe intimidation. John Young (2006), based on a 1997 PhD, describes the language and education situation in Tigray during the imperial period as follows: Although schooling was introduced in the beginning of the 20th century, schools were non-existent in Tigray until the Italian occupation (1935-1941). During the Italian occupation in Tigray, thirty-nine schools started primary education with the mother tongue, Tigringna, as a language of instruction. When Emperor Haile Selassie regained his power in 1941, all of these schools were closed except four, and the use of Tigrinya as a language of instruction was put to an end. (p. 75)

An interviewee, talking about the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in Italy-occupied Eritrea, described: I had a Tigrinya medium primary education. Tigrinya, along with Arabic, served as a language of education and administration during the Italian colony and federation period. During this period, Tigrinya had developed well and many textbooks, literary works, dictionaries, and newspapers were written in Tigrinya (Primary School (PS) Teacher, Interview, September 2013).

However, similar to the fate of Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray after the Italian occupation, the fate of Tigrinya in Eritrea after the federation period and its reunion with Ethiopia in 1952 was a complete ban of its use. According to the above informant, “Tigrinya was banned from being used as a language of education and for other official functions across all domains of life” (PS Teacher Interview, September 2013). Gebru Asrat, the key founder of the TPLF, who became the President of post1991 Tigray, in a speech delivered at the first Tigrinya Language Symposium, said, “The history of Tigrinya as an official or working language started in Eritrea which, however, was immediately abolished and replaced by Amharic by the imperial government’s decision” (1994/5 President’s Speech). I asked my informant what happened to the human (teachers) and material resources (textbooks) involved and employed when Tigrinya was serving as an MOI, and he pointed out that “all Tigrinya textbooks and materials were abolished or burnt through a campaign (zemacha) type of action. All Tigrinya-speaking teachers were transferred to teach in other parts of Ethiopia. I know most of them were assigned to Wellega” (PS Teacher Interview, same above). As a result of this teacher transfer, John Young (2006) points out that “the national government often placed native-tongued

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

59

Amharigna speakers in Tigrinya schools because, so it was reasoned, unlike native Tigrayans, they could not resort to answering students’ questions in Tigrinya” (p. 75). The above points illustrate that during the imperial period, use of only one language for all official domains of life relegated Tigrinya language to minority status and suppressed Tigrinya language speakers’ linguistic identity. This sometimes had a dehumanizing effect on the Tigrinya language speakers, which my informant, who had lived under the Amharic-only imperial language policy, described. During his school time in the 1960s, “speaking Amharic was considered as a sign of good, loyal, and integrated first class citizenship, while speaking other Ethiopian languages was presumed as a problem, and speaking Tigrinya in particular was considered as a separatist act and thus a number one threat to imperial policy and to national unity” (PS Teacher Interview, same as above). He also mentioned that there were cases where “individuals whose names signified their ethnic or linguistic identity other than the Amharic language were forced to change or disguise their names so as not to be identified and discriminated or dehumanized just due to such names” (PS Teacher Interview, same as above). Another informant, who had an active role during the 1970s movement, said, “I know that many Tigrinya natives with typical Tigrinya names used to be left out from being screened or recruited for various job opportunities (TPLF Member Interview, November 2013). A prominent TPLF political leader, who later became the Speaker of the House for the Tigray Regional Peoples’ Council, stated that a company owned by the dominant group publicly announced in the mid-1960s that the company intended “to operate a new plant without hiring Tigrayans,” which he claimed led to “uproar among Tigrayans throughout Ethiopia that led to boycotts of the product and eventually a climb-down by the company” (John Young’s January 7, 1993, interview with the mentioned informant; cited in Young 2006, p. 75). In short, during the imperial era, in an attempt to homogenize the multilingual country with an ideological orientation of “One Language-One Nation,” the Tigrinya language and culture were suppressed through various mechanisms, including the Constitutionally based language policy and various overt and covert policy implementation mechanisms, including banning the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray and Eritrea; officially closing the services of the majority of the schools that used to give instruction in Tigrinya in Tigray; and transferring the Tigrinya-speaking teachers from Eritrea to Wellega, so that they would not code switch to Tigrinya in school.

3.2.3

Tigrayans’ Resistance to the Pre-1991 Amharic-Only LPP

As a result of the language-based suppression of the Tigray people, various types of resistance to the imperial system arose in the Tigray region, although often they were

60

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

quickly put to an end. One informant stated, “High school students were engaged with sporadic movements to protest the linguistic hegemony” (TPLF Member Interview, November 2013). Another informant explained that students and teachers took active roles in promoting the Tigrinya language and identity through various mechanisms. An association named Bahli Tigray (The Culture of Tigray) was created, organized by Ato Gessessew Ayele.3 This association was formed with the purpose of revitalizing the Tigrayan culture, language, and identity. A weekly newspaper, Semenawi Kokeb4 (The Northern Star), started to be published in Tigrinya but had a very short life (TPLF Member Interview, November 2013).

With the imperial government attempting to run an explicit monolingual language ideology and policy as a device for nation building, in the 1970s, the atmosphere at Haile Selassie I University (HSIU, now Addis Ababa University, AAU) was a revolutionary one. The university campus was a strong place to develop revolutionary thoughts and movements. Most students found the university a conducive place to mobilize their revolutionary thoughts, express their resistance to the imperial system, and build their clandestine revolutionary activities. University students from Tigray also found the university to be a clandestine area to play their political or revolutionary roles of fighting for the linguistic and ethnic rights and identity of the Tigray people. To this end, in 1962 EC, the Tigrayan university students established an organization, Tigray University Students’ Association (TUSA). The founders5 of TUSA, Tilahun Gizaw and Meles Tekle, were the prominent leaders not only of TUSA but also of the HSIU Students’ Association and Movement at large. Besides having an organizing role in the university and in Addis Ababa, TUSA had a mobilizing role throughout Tigray, especially during the summer vacation, when most university students stay in their home town in Tigray (Interview with key founders of the TPLF, on Tigray Media Agency and EBC, January, 23, 2015). TUSA published pamphlets and occasional papers like “Etek” (Be Armed) and “Dimtsi Biher Tigray” (The Voice of the Tigray Nation), which were distributed freely in Tigray and other parts of the country (Tsinat, TPLF History Vol. 1, 2001 EC).

3

Ato Gessew Ayele was a member of the imperial parliament and later, being nicknamed Sehul Ayele, headed the Tigray People’s Armed Struggle to Dedebit in 1974. He was a key founder and leader of the TPLF. 4 The capital city of Tigray, Mekelle, is also nicknamed Semenawit Kokeb, probably as a remembrance to the newspaper and to reflect the emergence of a new modern city in the northern part of the country. 5 The two founders and leaders of the TUSA Association and the HSIU Association were killed by the imperial and Derg regimes respectively. The killing of Tilahun Gizaw dramatically made the student movement gain further support and momentum in Ethiopia. The killing of Meles Tekle in Addis Ababa, and its distant-cultural funeral ceremony in the market of his birthplace, Yeha, in which a very large crowd participated, increased public awareness of the brutal nature of the Derg. Eyasu and Fisuh describe that a revolutionary poem by a popular traditional folk singer evoked the emotions of many (Radio Archive and Fisuh, 2004 EC).

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

61

The HSIU student movement continued to be more proactive and revolutionary. Student political activists like Tilahun Gizaw and Wallelign Mekonnen published provocative articles and speeches, which reflected the ideological foundation of the student movement. For instance, an article by Wallelign Mekonnen, “Questions of Nations and Nationalities,” states, “Ethiopia is not yet a nation but an Amhara-ruled collection of a dozen nationalities” (The Struggle, 1969). In the same article, Wallelign Mekonnen stated the position of the student movement as “a prelude to the anticipated armed struggle which was to organize and educate the masses for action toward liberation that would take full account of the question of nationalities and languages”. The 1974 student movement, which led to the uprising of the Derg, hoped to end language-based hegemonic policy and discrimination. It aimed to put all nationalities on an equal footing, with the right for everyone to use, develop, and preserve their languages. Yet, despite the expectations of the Tigray people that this revolution would resolve the linguistic and cultural subjugation levied upon them for years, practices on the ground reflected the opposite. Despite the explicit or official promulgation of multilingual language policy by the Derg, it was underpinned by an implicit ideology or hidden agenda and became a de facto continuation of the monolingual policy of the imperial era.

3.2.4

Schools as Centers of Resistance in Tigray

The Tigray people reacted against Derg policies through various mechanisms, which ultimately led to the emergence and development of a resistance movement in education policy (TPLF Founder and Late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi’s interview with the BBC, February 7, 2015). This led to the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in parts of Tigray, while the Amharic-only policy had been in place throughout Ethiopia and in Derg-administered areas of Tigray. This section presents individual, community, and institution-initiated resistance to the language policy and the mechanisms employed in so doing, which led to the ultimate emergence and development of resistance language in education policy pre-1991 Tigray areas, “Hara Merets.” On September 11, 1974, the Derg officially announced that the imperial regime was demolished, that the Derg had assumed power, and declared a ban of any movement against the Derg and their revolutionary motto, “Ethiopia First.” Thus, TUSA called a meeting of its leadership (constituting seven of its members).6 The meeting was held on September 14, 1974, in a small café called CAVE CAFÉ in 6

Mentioning some of the members who had been involved in the 1974 TUSA meeting for establishing TNO, the Tigray Media Agency (EBC Jan. 23, 2015) listed the following university students who were intentionally selected to represent the 7 key districts/awrajas of Tigray: 1) Aregawi Berhe (Adwa), 2) Alemseged Mengesha (Tembien), 3) Ghidey Zeratsion (Shire), 4) Abay Tsehaye (Axum), 5) Seyoum Mesfin (Agame), and two others representing Enderta and Raya.

62

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

Piazza. After a day-long discussion, the members agreed to continue the clandestine urban-based struggle under the name Mahber Gesgesti7 Bihere Tigray (Tigray National Organization, TNO), which was agreed to be a prelude to the peasantbased Tigray Peoples’ Armed Struggle (Interview Archive, Tigray Media Agency and EBC, Jan. 23, 2015). Toward this end, they drafted a two-page revolutionary manifesto, which included the following agenda: i. The strategy of the movement is the formation of a democratic Ethiopia, in which the equality of all nationalities is respected. ii. A national armed struggle should be waged that would advance from the rural areas of Tigray to the urban areas. iii. The organization should be led by an urban-based organization known as the Tigray National Organization until such time as the armed struggle can begin (Aregawi Berhe 2008). These statements reveal that the urban-based revolution would lead to the national armed struggle to build a democratic Ethiopia, in which all nationalities are treated equally and have the right to use, preserve, and develop their languages and cultures (Interview Archive, Tigray Media Agency and EBC, Jan. 23, 2015). With such ideological and revolutionary aims, TUSA members, and now members of the TNO, took the Derg’s multilingual literacy campaign as an opportunity to further perpetuate the TUSA’s intention to lead a peasant-led armed struggle against the Derg. TUSA found the literacy campaign to be a means to sensitize and organize urban-based clandestine TUSA cells, for which high school teachers and students had been targeted as potential candidates. In the 1970s, clandestine cells and study groups became prevalent and proactive in the urban area of Tigray. A research participant stated that, “High school teachers and students, different from previous times, were aware of the threat upon the ethnic and linguistic identity of the Tigrayan people. They started clandestine discussions and movements centering on how to mobilize the mass for a state opposition” (TPLF Member Interview, December 2013). Consequently, the Tigray Nationalism Movement and its intended armed struggle became pivotal issues of discussion, and micro-level resistances emerged as mechanisms to build Tigrayan nationalism among the students and the public at large, and thus to revitalize the Tigrayan people’s language, culture, and identity. As John Young (2006) described, “teachers were well positioned, with a captive audience of students, to covertly raise their objections to state policy and attempt to give a political form to Tigrayan nationalism” (p. 77). The late Eyasu Berhe,8 in a radio interview with Meaza Biru of FM 102.1, describes how his geography teacher, who was a member of the TNO, used to try

7

Mahber Gesgesti Bihere Tigray means Progressive Association of the Tigray Nation, but its English equivalent used was Tigray National Organization (TNO). 8 Eyasu Berhe was one of the key members of the TPLF. He is the first TPLF vocalist who has been famous for producing many traditional and history-oriented revolutionary songs and dramas, which

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

63

to build nationalism among the students even during class time, when he was supposed to be teaching geography. Our geography teacher, Yohannes Kidanemariam who later formed his own revolutionary party, Gimbar Gedli Harnet Tigray, used not to teach us geography but rather the history of Atse Yohannes, Ras Alula, and many others. Most teachers freely used to make the school a center to mobilize and recruit the students. (Sheger 102.1. FM Radio Archive Interview)

From the above, it can be implied that the schools were centers for running the TNO’s political agenda. They served as centers of the clandestine movement to agitate and mobilize Tigrayan nationalism among the students and to continue perpetuating Tigrayan nationalism-oriented activities outside the school. Eyasu Berhe also described overt manifestations of resistance through the use of Tigrinya in public spaces, which the next section describes.

3.2.5

Public Signs as a Way to Resist

Someone (e.g., a foreigner) who had been informed of the fact that Tigrinya is the language of the majority population of Tigray, and visited Pre-1989/1991 Mekelle or other places in Tigray, might have been puzzled by the Amharic-only public signs. They might, in fact, assume that Amharic is the dominant language of the population. It can be argued that such linguistic landscapes are explicit manifestations of the language policies and ideologies of the imperial government and the Derg regime. A linguistic landscape is the “visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region” (Landry and Bourhis 1997, p. 23) and has been studied in recent works by sociolinguists (e.g., Ben-Rafael et al. 2006; Spolsky and Cooper 1991; Spolsky and Shohamy 1999). According to Eyasu, “an owner of a café, who used to live in Asmara-Eritrea, came to Mekelle and opened a café and put up signs written in Tigrinya” (FM 102.2 Radio Interview Archive). They said, “Bet Shahi Debre Genet” and “Debre Genet Shay Bet,” which both mean Debre Genet Café. The appearance of a public sign in Tigrinya (shown in Fig. 3.1), instead of Amharic, grabbed the attention of the public. This happened in a policy context where, as Eyasu9 described, “to be found having a Tigrinya text, even the Bible, was considered illegal or taboo by the Derg.” It was also the first time that a billboard in Tigrinya was displayed in Mekelle, or in Tigray.

are believed to have had key roles in mobilizing the masses, particularly the young. In a radio conversation that he held with Meaza Biru of 102.2 FM Radio, he mentioned that, during the early periods of the TPLF, he had worked closely with Meles Zenawi, the late TPLF leader and Prime Minister of the FDRE. He passed away accidently immediately after he performed his renowned songs and facilitated a humanitarian public show held in Alamata, south Tigray in 2002 EC. 9 Eyasu had been a high school student when the resistant situation happened, and he told about it in an interview with the Sheger 102.2 FM Radio on the radio program, “Yechewata Engida.”

64

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

ቤት ሻሂ ደብረ ገነት

‘ደብረ ገነት ሻይ ቤት‘

[‘Bet Shahi Debre Genet’]

[‘Debre Genet Shay Bet’]

Fig. 3.1 Public sign in Tigrinya Fig. 3.2 Public sign in Amharic

ቤት ሻሂ ደብረ ገነት እና መኝታ ቤት

I found out that the café was located on the main road to the then only one high school in the city, Atse Yohannes Comprehensive Secondary School, which was named after the Tigrayan Emperor, Yohannes IV. Being close to the school, the café was easily accessible to the students, though, according to Eyasu, was not a place frequently visited by the students. When the Tigrinya signs appeared, the café grabbed the attention of the students, and they started to flock to it after school. Eyasu said, A military official interrogated the owner why such a number of students started to frequent his café. The official then reasoned out that it happened because the owner was a TPLF agent, and the students often came to run TPLF agendas. Finally, the official questioned why he used Tigrinya for advertising his café (FM 102.2 Radio Interview Archive).

Now understanding how this change in the linguistic landscape had grabbed the attention of both the students and government agents, the owner asked someone to help him take the billboard down. He added an Amharic phrase, which was not a translation of the Tigrinya version, shown in Fig. 3.2. The Amharic was in small letters, positioned underneath the larger Tigrinya text. The Amharic phrase was: “Ena Megnita Bet” (and pension). This new billboard engendered further discussions among the students. Eyasu summarizes the key features of the reconstructed billboard: • The Tigrinya version was in “large captions,” while the Amharic one was in “small captions.” • The Tigrinya caption was “on top of” the Amharic caption. • The Tigrinya caption meant a place for “having tea” (which can imply to get refreshed and be awakened), while the Amharic version meant a place for “having bed/sleep” (which seems to refer to visitors or to those who are away from their homes).

3.2 Appropriation, Hegemony, and Resistance (Pre-1991 Ethiopia)

3.2.6

65

The TPLF and Resistance LPP in Tigray

The overthrow of Haile Selassie and the imperial government in 1974 marked a radical ideological shift in Ethiopia, from feudalism to socialism and from de jure monolingual policy to de jure multilingual policy. Yet, the shift had actually led to a de facto continuation of monolingual language policy and ideology, as described above. Under the Derg, the multilingual policy was implemented as a monolingual policy. Language, as a tool for power, served as a political tool to shift the students’ attention and grab the attention of the nationalities of Ethiopia by addressing the claimed long-time problem of the people, but only on paper. The exception to this continuation of language policy and practice was in Tigray. As described above, pre-1991, Tigray had two conflicting language policies, put into practice by two contesting policy agencies. The part of Tigray under the administration of the Central Government, the Derg, declared Amharic-only in all official domains of life and public use. The part of Tigray that was called (at the time) “Hara Merets” (to mean enemy- or Derg-free areas, under the administration of the TPLF) had Tigrinya language policy for all domains of life, and Tigrinya was the MOI of primary education (grades 1–8). This section describes why and how the TPLF started and developed a Tigrinyabased mother tongue education in pre-1991 Ethiopia. The inception springs from the HSIU student movement’s ideology which, influenced by socialist ideologies, questioned the rights of the nations and nationalities of Ethiopia and served as a foundation for the Derg’s socialist ideology and the emergence and development of resistance movements such as the TPLF in Tigray. The TPLF historian whom I interviewed described the TPLF and its revolutionary aims as follows: The TPLF was set up by Tigrayan students in Haile Sillassie I University (HSIU), who subscribed to the view that Ethiopia was the prison of nations and nationalities. Particularly, it sought to assert the self determination of the people of Tigray, who were under extreme economic hardship, political repression, and cultural marginalization. (TPLF Historian Questionnaire, November, 2014)

The TPLF took nationalism as its basic ideological foundation, which would serve the Tigrayan people, particularly the peasants. Thus, with “Tigrayan Nationalism” as an ideological tool, the TPLF viewed the fundamental problem in Ethiopia to be oppression of nations and nationalities and class oppression, which primarily put the TPLF in ideological contradiction with the EPRP and the All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement, AESOM or (Meison in Amharic). The AESOM, which emerged from the HSIU student movement (TPLF Historian Questionnaire, same as above), was a student-led Ethiopian socialist movement that was allied with the EPRP against the Derg in the 1970s. AESM members and leaders experienced brutal persecution by Mengitsu’s Derg forces during the Ethiopian Red Terror (Shinn and Ofcansky 2013, pp. 36–37).

66

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

In engineering Tigrayan nationalism in Tigray, the intelligentsia who gave birth to the armed struggle employed various strategies for awakening the Tigray people. First, they connected the TPLF armed struggle with past revolutionary histories in Tigray. For instance, the struggle had been first termed in Tigrinya as , “TEGADILO HARNET HIZBI TIGRAY” (TEHAHIT). Later, at the 1971 EC First TPLF Conference, it was renamed , which in English means Tigray People’s Revolutionary Front (TPLF). When asked why this renaming was done, the TPLF historian claimed that it was a strategy that the TPLF employed to have the same revolutionary name as, “WEYANE TIGRAY,” and thus associate its struggle with the 1943 Tigray people’s uprising. As a result, it was conceived as a continuation of the first Weyane, which was highly accepted by the Tigray people. However, by using the first Weyane’s name, the young revolutionists were understood to be successors of the failed Tigray revolution, which sought to overthrow the emperor Haile Selassie in 1943 and resulted in the British bombing of the capital, Mekelle. The TPLF also employed other strategies to inculcate Tigray nationalism in the Tigray people, which were conceived as strategies to show the true commitment of the armed struggle to the Tigray people, who were denied their linguistic and cultural rights. As the TPLF historian described, The Tigray province was economically declining and culturally stagnating due to biased centralized policies of the time. Tigrayans were not only banned from preserving and promoting their language and identity, they were also viewed in suspicion as “rebels”. Thus, the province was left to suffer in poverty, diseases, backwardness, and lack of justice. In the course of the struggle, the TPLF conducted varied activities such as: introducing a literacy campaign using the vernacular language; introducing local administration through Tigrinya; opening Tigrinya-medium primary schools and health facilities; giving them ways and means to express and promote their language (both in spoken and written form), culture, and identity in its liberated areas; allowing them to exercise their basic political rights (e.g., electing local councils, promoting gender equality); introducing poetry, songs, print, and radio broadcasts in Tigrinya to sensitize people to its power and show the commitment of the movement to revitalizing the linguistic and cultural identity of the Tigray people. The use of Tigrinya was a strategy to win the trust and support of the rural population. All of these steps enhanced the national consciousness of the Tigrayans and helped the TPLF enjoy mass support as well as organize an effective, efficient, and disciplined army by enlisting a large number of men and women to be dedicated fighters for the Tigrayan nationalist cause.

One of the uses of Tigrinya was as a medium of instruction. Participants in the 1971 Conference of the TPLF discussed the need to provide primary school education to the masses as well as to the increasing number of uneducated members of the movement. Consequently, Tigrinya started to be used as an MOI in primary education in the Hara Meret area in 1974 EC. When the TPLF controlled the entire Tigray

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

67

region in February, 1989, Tigrinya was used as an MOI in all parts of Tigray (TPLF/ Hara Meret Education Department Head, Interview, September 2014). Views about how this occurred are mixed: One interviewee said that the use of Tigrinya as an MOI didn’t happen immediately in 1989, when the TPLF liberated the whole Tigray, but rather in February, half way through the academic year (TPLF Education Department Head Interview, September 2014). Another interviewee, who had a key role in the TPLF Education Department, mentioned that it didn’t happen at all in 1989, because the TPLF was extremely engaged with resolving an ideological rift between the TPLF army and its leadership: Having freed the entire Tigray and its people from the enemy, the majority of the TPLF army refused to fight the enemy beyond the boundaries of Tigray. They strongly argued that our struggle was to free Tigray, and that was done. They insisted on returning to start their normal life in an enemy-free Tigray. The TPLF leadership argued the opposite, that it would be impossible to have a free Tigray while the other parts of the country and the people were not free from the same enemy. This would be giving an opportunity for the enemy to make itself strong and put Tigray under its control. With such conflicting ideas between the army and its leadership, convincing the army was extremely difficult for the leadership, which resulted in hot discussions for more than one month. (TPLF Education Department Head Interview, October 2014)

Thus, education in the newly liberated and TPLF-administered Tigray region restarted in 1990. For the first time, all primary schools in Tigray started to use Tigrinya as an MOI. A year later, in 1991, Ethiopia was entirely freed from the enemy, the Derg, a transitional government was formed, and the TPLF-EPRDF took power. Post-1991 Tigray, being under the EPRDF-led TGE, became an autonomous regional state. The TPLF continued to be the sole political party and a de facto governor of Tigray. In summary, the TPLF, with its revolutionary ideologies and orientations against the policy contexts of the pre- and post-1974 regimes, employed language as a device for mobilizing Tigrayans. To this end, the TPLF developed a resistance language policy and practices, which its members argued served the movement, achieved public support, and gained momentum.

3.3

Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

As multilingual language policy and planning took root in post-1991 Ethiopia, it was appropriated in the context of the Regional State of Tigray. The emergence of the Tigrinya-based Mother Tongue Education Policy in Tigray reflects the commencement of a resistance language policy by the TPLF. The overthrow of the Derg in 1991 brought the Resistance Language Policy Agencies, the TPLF, and its coalitional party, EPRDF, to power. This resulted in not only a power change but also in ideological and Constitutional changes, which resulted in changes in education policy and practices in post-1991 Ethiopia.

68

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

This section describes the agency, policy, and ideological discourses in the creation and appropriation of the Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Language in Education Policy in post-1991 Ethiopia, with its federal and regional Constitutional and official policy creation and implementation. It attempts to critically examine language policy statements as stated or implied in the federal Constitution, education policy documents, and other official government programs and how these have been adopted and implemented by the Regional State of Tigray and addresses the following issues: 1. How the resistance movement policies (bottom-up, of the TPLF, OLF) affected or shaped the macro policies (top-down, e.g., the TGE Charter/Policy Guideline); that is, the interplay of top-down and bottom-up policies. 2. How the federal multilingual policy, as stated in official and legal documents and in policy mechanisms such as the Constitution, led to a regional de facto policy, the continuation of Tigrinya only as MOI in a multilingual region The section illuminates the link between top-down and bottom-up policy approaches and questions assumptions that LPP is a linear process of formulation, implementation, and evaluation.

3.3.1

Mechanisms, Agency, and Ideology

According to Shohamy (2006), “policy documents, language laws, officiality, nationalization, language academics, and citizenship laws” are referred as language policy devices or mechanisms (p. 59). Thus, official documents or statements in the federal or regional Constitution can be considered language policy devices or tools. This section describes the key policy devices that served to maintain and perpetuate the dominant language policy and ideology and seemed to contradict the country’s and the regional state’s official or Constitutional multilingual LPP.

3.3.1.1

Ethiopia’s 1991 Transitional Charter/Political Program

After the demise of the Derg and the coming to power of the TPLF-led coalition force, the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Force (EPRDF) in May 28, 1991, the EPRDF established the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE). Largely led by HSIU student movement political activists, who later became key leaders of the TPLF and EPRDF, concern was focused on the primary cause of the 1974 student-led revolution, with its Questions of Nations and Nationalities. To this end, in July 1, 1991, the TGE convened a Conference for Peace and Democracy, which involved representatives of 27 Ethiopian political parties and many international envoys from 15 countries and international organizations. The conference brought in the Transitional Charter, which divided Ethiopia into federated units, largely demarcated on the basis of the majority language groups. The preamble of

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

69

the transitional charter, among other statements, declared that the adoption of the charter would: Start a new chapter in Ethiopian history in which freedom, equal rights, and selfdetermination of all the peoples shall be the governing principles of political, economic, and social life . . . thereby contributing to the welfare of the Ethiopian Peoples and rescuing them from centuries of subjugation and backwardness (Transitional Conference 1991, Preamble).

The text further stated that “to this end, each nation, nationality, and people is guaranteed the right to”: (a) Preserve its identity and have it respected, promote its culture and history, and use and develop its language; (b) Administer its own affairs within its own defined territory and effectively participate in the central government on the basis of freedom and fair and proper representation; (c) Exercise its right to self-determination of independence, when the concerned nation/nationality and people is convinced that the above rights are denied, abridged, or abrogated. (Transitional Conference 1991, Part One, Article Two) With this language as the ideological foundation of the TGE’s Political Program, the Council of Representatives of the TGE issued a policy guideline related to language use in education: PS1:

The use of Amharic as a medium of instruction continues in the areas where the mother tongue is non-Amharic. PS2: Afaan Oromooo, Sidamigna, Wolaitigna, and Tigrinya be used as medium of instruction as of 1992. PS3: Studies be carried out on the use of other nationality languages as a medium of instruction as soon as possible, while in the meantime continue offering education as in the past. PS4: The right to choose the scripts in which the respective languages are to be written. (TGE 1991)

PS1 (Policy Statement 1) explicitly established the continuation of Amharic as an MOI in all non-Amharic speaking areas or regions, except in areas where Afaan Oromooo, Sidamigna, Wolaitigna, and Tigrinya were spoken, as stated in PS2. In light of these two policy statements, we could infer that Amharic would be used in Amharic-speaking areas or regions, although this is not stated explicitly. With regard to why the other four languages were selected to be used as MOI, PS3 states that studies would be carried out about languages to be used as MOI and implies that since studies had not been carried out, they would not be used in education at least until studies were done. Here we could ask some questions about these statements and their implications, such as: Were these four languages selected because studies had been done or due to some other motives or reasons? I asked an interviewee who was an EPRDF representative for the Ministry of Education (MOE) and had been involved in this policy formulation. He described the situation that led to the choice of these languages as follows:

70

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP I was assigned as a TPLF-EPRDF representative to the MOE. When the policy guideline was planned to be established, only Tigray and obviously Amharic were found having textbooks or curriculum ready for use. The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) members came with 13 volumes/series books in Oromifaa, which were written in the Latin script. They argued for the use of Latin and mentioned that the OLF had been using these materials in Nekemt, Wellega. Having these pieces of information, I went to Nekemt to verify and witness the speakers’ attitude toward the use of the Latin script. I found their attitude to be positive, and I came back to Addis and asked one of the OPDM leaders for his suggestion on what the OLF claimed and what I found out of my visit to Wellega! He responded, in Tigrinya, saying, “Aab’a rigetse!” (“Act accordingly”). As to the choice of Sidamigna, someone from the Sidamas came and showed me Sidamigna books written in the Latin script. Although these books were not textbooks, they implied that the language is relatively developed to be used as an MOI. (EPRDF/TGE Representative for the MOE Interview, October 2014)

This quote implies that the languages were chosen to be used as MOI not due to the fact that studies had been conducted, but rather because some of the policy agents for these languages had access to influence the decision making and provided evidence related to the status of the languages. They were, thus, able to shape the policy according to their interests. This could imply that other languages, with similar or even more development, did not have access to the policy agents or given the opportunity to provide evidence and influence the decision making. For instance, Af-Somali had been used as an MOI in the Somali education system at the University for Education and Medical Sciences during President Said Bare’s rule in Somalia. Though this was not in Ethiopia, it could have affected the use of Af-Somali as an MOI in the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia. Moreover, given that 15 languages, including the above 5 languages, had been employed as MOI in the Derg’s literacy program, with the result that they had writing systems (orthographies) and written resources, these languages could have serve as MOI in at least the early grades of primary education until studies could be conducted related to them, as stated in PS3. In case population size was a factor in choosing the four languages, there are other Ethiopian languages with much higher population sizes than Tigrinya, Sidamuu Afoo, and Wolaittattoo. The population of Af-Somali speakers is similar to that of Tigrinya speakers and much larger than speakers of Sidamuu Afoo and Wolaittattoo. Besides, from an ideological point of view, the size of nationalities could not be a rationale for such policy decision making by a government like the TGE/EPRDF, which explicitly promulgated equality of all nations and nationalities in Ethiopia. Taking these points related to the TGE’s language policy statements, it can be implied that the decisions about language choice were driven more by policy agents (as a result of their access to power) than by ideology. The EPRDF, during the transitional period, was a composite or coalition of the following political parties or organizations: EPDM (Ethiopian Peoples’ Democratic Movement, now ANDM, Amhara National Democratic Movement), TPLF, OPDM-Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Movement, and Rift Valley Freedom Fighters‟ Association (now SEPDM, South Ethiopia Peoples’ Democratic Movement). These respectively represented the Amharic, Tigrinya, and Afaan Oromo languages and the two South Nationality languages, Sidamuu Afoo and Wollaittattoo.

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

71

In other words, the political parties constituting the ruling party, EPRDF/TGE, being in a position of power to influence, shaped the language policy probably to conform with the EPRDF allied forces/parties agendas, ideologies, and previous practices. In this regard, Daniel and Abebayehu (2006) claimed that during the language in education policy making process in Ethiopia, “ethnic-based ‘non-education interest groups’ had been encouraged through significant sources of power” (p. 158). The process also reflects how “local contextual agents . . . affect how macro-level plans function and the outcomes they achieve” (Liddicoat and Baldauf 2008, p. 4). The TGE’s 1991 policy guidelines have served as a policy mechanism to establish the de facto continuation of the regional dominant language, Tigrinya, as the only MOI of Tigray within the post-1991 political and policy context, with the relegation of the regional minority nationalities and their languages, Saho and Kunama, to non-existence. Consequently, despite the TGE’s official declaration of a political and language ideology on the equality of nations and nationalities and their rights to use and develop their languages, only Tigrinya was employed as MOI in primary education throughout Tigray and for all nationalities in the regional state. The Ex-President of the Tigray Regional State, in one of his speeches, stated that “Tigrinya language, in history, has become a working language in the entire Tigray, from border to border.” He also stated that the use of Tigrinya as the only working language throughout Tigray was a key victory for TPLF (Regional State President’s Speech, 1987 EC). It may be that the President was not cognizant of the implications of the policy on the other regional nationalities and languages. On the other hand, since he was one of the founders and leaders of the TPLF, his speech may simply confirm the claims of the first TPLF Conference report, which stipulates that the long historical and socioeconomic ties among the Tigray nationalities (Speakers of Tigrinya, Afar, Agaw, Saho, and Kunama) have led to establishment of the Tigray Nation with “Tegaru”/Tigray National Identity (first TPLF Conference Report, 1971, pp. 1 and 7). In this regard, I asked my informants what the implications were of the use of Tigrinya throughout Tigray in post-1991 Ethiopia. They expressed conflicting views. One said that “the use of Tigrinya in education throughout post-1991 Tigray confirmed not only the liberation of Tigray from the Amharic-based policy but also the righteousness of the ideological foundations of our struggle” (TPLF Member Interview, October 2013). John Young, using research from his PhD dissertation on the political history of the TPLF, states that “employment of Tigrinya as the language of instruction in schools graphically illustrated the TPLF’s goal of winning control of Tigray’s culture from outsiders” (2006, p. 173). A Saho native educator said, “the use of only Tigrinya as a language of instruction implies, to me and . . . probably to the whole Irob people, that Tigray is only for the Tigrinya-speaking nationality”. (Saho Native Educator, Interview, September 2014).

72

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

3.3.1.2

Ethiopia’s New Education and Training Policy, 1994

The TGE’s 1991 charter and policy guidelines, and the FDRE’s Constitution, laid out explicitly the right of all nations and nationalities to use, preserve, and develop their languages and cultures. This implies that they have the right to use their languages as MOI and in other official and public domains. Consequently, the FDRE’s Ministry of Education (1994) developed the New Education and Training Policy (NETP), which includes policy issues related to language and education. Section 5, Language and Education, has the following articles: 3.5.1. Cognizant of the pedagogical advantage to the child in learning in the mother tongue and the rights of nationalities to promote the use of their languages, primary education will be given in nationality languages. 3.5.2. Making the necessary preparations, nations and nationalities can either learn in their own language or can choose from among those selected on the basis of national and countrywide distribution. 3.5.3. The language of teacher training for kindergarten and primary education will be the nationality language used in the area. 3.5.4. Amharic shall be taught as a language of countrywide communication. 3.5.8. The necessary steps will be taken to strengthen language teaching at all levels. (emphasis added)

Article 3.5.1 establishes the use of nationality languages as MOI in primary education, grades 1–8. It employs the phrase “will be given,” a strong future passive discourse marker, which implies that the decision will be made from the top, in this case, the government. This article has two foundational elements: ideological and pedagogical. Ideological in that it is the right of every nationality, consistent with the Constitution of the country and other International Human Rights Conventions, that the country has signed or agreed to be in conformity with; pedagogical in that mother tongue-based education is pedagogically and psychologically advantageous. The FDRE policy document, Government’s Implementation Capacity Building, Strategies, and Programs, states, “the NETP confirms/declares children’s right to learn in their mother tongues for pedagogical and political reasons” (FDRE 2002, p. 62, Amharic Version). The same document states, Every nationality has the basic right of using its own language and developing its culture. These rights are also well known as peoples’ and citizens’ human rights. In our country, putting the right of children to learn in their mother tongues into effect is appropriate especially while our country is contemporarily exerting all efforts to keep the peoples’ and citizens’ human and democratic rights in a sustainable manner. (FDRE 2002, pp. 63–64, Amharic Version)

Article 3.5.2., with the phrase “making the necessary preparations,” for which the nationalities are responsible, is open to multiple interpretations at multiple layers of policy making and implementation processes. Unlike article 3.5.1, the language of instruction can be chosen, which implies a bottom-up policy approach. The FDRE’s document states: The new education policy just respects the right of every nationality to use its own language as an MOI. It does not put any obligation on any nationality to use its language as an MOI.

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

73

Thus, if a nationality lacks the capacity or the interest to use its own language, the nationality can learn through another language that the nationality chooses. And, a nationality with the interest and the capacity to use its own language can learn through its own language. (FDRE 2002, p. 64, emphasis added)

Thus, despite the Constitutional right of every nationality to use its language in education and to promote mother tongue education in Ethiopia, the implementation of this mother tongue education policy depends on the capacity and the interests of the nationalities. Consequently, in the present Ethiopia, many nationality languages, estimated to be over 30, are used as MOI in primary education. This could imply that only these 30 or more nationalities have the capacity and interest to use their languages as MOI in education. It also implies that other Ethiopian languages are not employed for the same purpose, since their nationalities do not have the capacity or interest to do so. The FDRE document states the following in this regard: Among the nations and nationalities in Ethiopia, at this time (2002), less than half of them are using their mother tongues in education. The other nationalities, although their right to use their mother tongues is respected, having lacked either the capacity or the interest, they are getting education through other languages of their own choice. (p. 64, Amharic Version, emphasis added)

This statement implies that the use of only Tigrinya as an MOI in primary education for all the regional nationalities is due to the fact that the regional nationalities other than the Tigrayan nationality lacked the capacity and/or (taking the use of ‘or’ in the above quote) the interest to use their languages. It implies that the use of Tigrinya has been the choice of not only the Tigrayan nationality but also of the Irob and Kunama nationalities.

3.3.1.3

FDRE and Tigray National Regional State Constitutions

The language policy of a polity is often officially declared in the Constitution, political programs, or other official policy documents. These documents are presumed to be language policy mechanisms for perpetuating the government’s ideology (Shohamy 2006). Through such mechanisms, language policy is often underpinned by the sociopolitical and historical contexts of the state, which in turn underpins the language ideology of the state’s political system and its agents. This section examines the language ideology and language policy as explicitly stated in the federal Constitution and the regional Constitution of Tigray. In addressing the “Questions of Nations and Nationalities” as an ideological foundation of the federal government, the Ethiopian Constitution, Article 39 (2) stipulates: FDRE Constitution Article 39(2) Every Nation, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia has the right to speak, to write, and to develop its own language; to express, to develop, and to promote its culture; and to preserve its history.

74

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

This statement reveals the general but explicit linguistic and cultural rights of all nationalities and is an explicit manifestation of the government’s language ideology. The regional states are empowered by the federal Constitution “to draft, adopt, and amend their own Constitutions” (Article, 50(5)), which, however, need to be subject to the “Supremacy” of the federal Constitution. Thus, in adopting the FDRE Constitution the Constitution of the Regional State of Tigray, and taking the FDRE’s Article 39(2) as it is, the regional Constitution added the following statement: Tigray Regional State Constitution Article 39(1) The Regional State of Tigray constitutes the Tigrayan, Irob, and Kunama Nationalities, which all have the right to self-determination including the right to secession.

In Article 5 of the Constitution, the federal government explicitly stipulates that: FDRE Constitution Article 5 1. All Ethiopian languages shall enjoy equal state recognition. 2. Amharic shall be the working language of the Federal Government. 3. Members of the Federation may by law determine their respective working languages.

The first statement states that all languages, having equal Constitutional recognition, are official languages of the country, which means that they have equal Constitutional or official recognition, regardless of their demographic, socioeconomic, sociolinguistic, geopolitical, and historical factors. This statement implies that all languages have the Constitutional right to be used as “official languages.” However, the second statement reveals that Amharic, as a “working language” of the federal government, is the language that the federal government employs for its various official domains, such as communicating with the regional states. The third statement implies that nations and nationalities, as members of the federation, have the right to decide their respective working languages but with the caveat, “. . . may by law determine . . . .” The Tigray National Regional State Constitution adopted Article 5 of the federal Constitution as follows: Tigray Regional State Constitution Article 5 1. All languages found in the National Regional State of Tigray have equal recognition. 2. The working language of the National Regional State of Tigray is Tigrinya.

This states that all languages in the regional state have official and equal recognition by the regional government. It also states that Tigrinya is the working language of the regional government, as Amharic is the working language of the federal government. If the term “working language” does not mean the “official language” of the region, it can be argued that while Tigrinya is the working language of the regional government, the other nationality languages can be used officially for other domains, such as the MOI in primary education. However, if the term “working language” means the “official language” of the region, it implies that

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

75

languages other than Tigrinya cannot be employed for official purposes of the nationalities. With this point of contention, it is worth noting that the third statement of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution was left out of the Regional Constitution.

3.3.2

Multilingual LPP as Appropriated in Post-1991 Tigray

In Sect. 3.2, I describe why and how the TPLF commenced its struggle against the policy of the Derg, which led to the emergence of a resistance language policy in Tigray. The TPLF started to use Tigrinya for all public domains of the “HaraMerets” of Tigray and the official or working language of the movement. Thus, it provided primary education in Tigrinya, in contradiction to the Amharic-only policy and practice in Tigray under the administration of the Derg. This made language serve as a mechanism for winning the hearts and minds of the Tigray people and thus as a political or ideological tool for perpetuating the TPLF’s nationalism-oriented movement among the Tigray people. This section describes why and how Tigrinya continued as the only MOI in the regional state of Tigray while the TGE, FDRE, and Tigray Regional State had officially and Constitutionally declared the rights of all nations and nationalities to use and develop their languages. It attempts to examine the mechanisms and the implications of employing and perpetuating a Tigrinya-only MOI as a de facto monolingual policy, despite the multilingual policy and political and ideological foundations of the TPLF, the Regional State, and the Federal Government.

3.3.2.1

Tigrinya as MOI: Attitudes, Factors, and Challenges

The early post-1991Tigray demographic context, especially in urban settings, can be characterized as a mix of two Tigrinya-speaking groups (which included parents, children, students, and teachers). The first group was those who stayed in the TPLFcontrolled Hara-Merets of pre-1991Tigray. The other group was those who fled with the Derg when Tigray was freed from the Derg in 1989 and flocked back to their home region in 1991 (TRSEB Educator, Interview, October 2014). This implies that the first group followed the Tigrinya-only TPLF policy and the second, the Derg’s Amharic-only policy. As a result, the use of Tigrinya for various domains of life, and particularly as an MOI in primary education, was full of challenges for multiple reasons: peoples’ ideological and linguistic differences, differences in the curriculum and educational objectives of pre- and post-1991 Tigray, and a shortage of human resources who could employ Tigrinya as an MOI. Peoples’ Divergent Language Backgrounds and Ideologies In post-1991 Tigray, having entertained people from two contradictory sociopolitical and policy contexts, though largely with the same mother tongue (Tigrinya speakers), the two groups showed different interests and ideologies. One informant claimed that “the most

76

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

frequent challenge of the time was the Tigray peoples’ attitudes, especially the attitudes of those who were not used to such a system.” Some of the views and reactions expressed during the early post-1991 Tigray period were: People felt pride in the freedom to use Tigrinya as an MOI; People felt happy being free from the past linguistic subjugation over the Tigray people and its language. (Multiple Interviews) Tigrinya as an MOI would be so difficult; Tigrinya being less developed as an MOI, compared to Amharic, and the quality of education would be compromised for the sake of the language. (Multiple Interviews) Tigrinya would be very challenging as an MOI, since it was less standardized, and there were dialectally different speakers of the language. (Multiple Interviews) Since Tigrinya was a regional language, mobility of people across the country would be limited. When parents move to other regions with other MOIs, children with Tigrinya MOI would be at a disadvantage. (Multiple Interviews) In reaction to these views, a TPLF member and TRSEB official explained the matter from the standpoint of the TPLF: Concerning peoples’ mobility, Amharic being taught as a subject in grade 3 does address the mobility concerns of the people. If Amharic is taught effectively, mobility across the country would not be a problem when children are getting education through their mother tongues. (TPLF member and TRSEB official Interview, September 2014)

Another informant claimed that there were instances in which “parents, students, and teachers opted for the use of Amharic as MOI.” He added that this “may be due to mobility, language development, or being accustomed to Amharic as MOI, which used to be labeled as “Dergawyan” (the language of followers of the Derg) and that this may be because this was in contradiction to the TPLF’s Tigrayan goals and to the pre-1991 Hara-Meret language policy and practices. (Language Educator Interview, October 2014). The Ex-President of the Regional State, Ato Gebru Asrat, stated: The experiences and educational foundations of the language educators/teachers we have now have been to ensure the hegemony of the Amharic language. Thus, they lack a proper understanding of the history and content of the Tigrinya language. There are times in which some contend that developing Tigrinya is unlikely and prefer the already-developed language, Amharic. (Regional State President’s Speech, 1987 E.C/1994/1995)

Another TPLF member explained, No language is born developed. Everything gets strength if it is put into practice, into a challenge. That is how the TPLF struggle gained its strength. So did Tigrinya. During its inception, the TPLF was not fit to carry out its ambitious aims. Neither was Tigrinya. Through time and passing through very challenging problems and experiences, everything gets to be a better and better fit for what they are meant for. So do the TPLF and Tigrinya. Peoples’ views and reactions are understood by the TPLF to be natural. The TPLF expects that such challenges often happen, especially during the initial shift of policy periods. (TPLF Member Interview, October 2013)

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

77

The use of only Tigrinya as an MOI for the education of all the regional nationalities, regardless of their interests or their mother tongues (for Saho and Kunama-speaking nationalities), contradicts the proclaimed ideological stands of the TGE/TPLF-EPRDF’s political program. With these problems in mind, I raised different questions pertaining to why Tigrinya continued as the only MOI of the whole of Tigray and how this happened. Here I summarize what my informants, who have been involved in managing and implementing the education system of post-1991 Tigray, pointed out and my analysis of various policy documents. These informants and sources revealed that only Tigrinya was made to continue as an MOI of primary education in post-1991 Tigray because: i. Tigrinya was already in place for the TPLF-administered Hara-Meret Education of pre-1991 Tigray, which led Tigrinya to: • Be a mark of the TPLF-led Tigray People’s Resistance to the Hegemonic Policy (TPLF Member, Interview, October 2014) • Be developed and be an effective language of instruction (Hara-Meret Education Teacher, Interview, September 2014) • Have reasonably rich written resources including curriculum, textbooks, dictionaries, a glossary of words in various disciplines, etc. (Hara-Meret • Education Teacher, Interview-September 2014) ii. The TGE’s policy guideline explicitly stated the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray, while no mention was made of the use of the other regional nationality languages for the same function (TGE, 1991, Document Analysis).

These two factors underpinning the continuation of Tigrinya as the only MOI in Tigray reflect the interplay between bottom-up LPP (which emerged as a resistance policy and practice) and top-down LPP (which resulted from the TGE’s language policy guidelines). The Gap Between the Pre- and Post-1991 Curriculum/Educational Objectives A second challenge to the use of Tigrinya as an MOI was the curriculum. The curriculum in place in pre-1991 Tigray had been tuned to the political and military agenda of the TPLF and was developed with adult learners in mind (TPLF Education Department Head Interview, September 2014). Therefore, its use in the post-1991 Tigray context was thought, by many educators, to be not appropriate to the context and objectives at hand. However, my informants told me that the Hara Meret curriculum was used as the formal curriculum during the 1992 academic year (TRSEB Language Curriculum Developers, and RSEB Head and TPLF Member Interviews, September 2014). In 1992, the curriculum was evaluated by curriculum and subject area educators and found to be not fit “to the contemporary objectives of the primary education” and “to the age or grade levels of the primary school children.” A new Tigrinya-medium curriculum was developed in 1992 and implemented in 1993, which was actually an adaptation of the Amharic-medium textbooks. With the new education and training policy in 1994, this new Tigrinya-medium curriculum was further evaluated and

78

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

determined to “not fit the objectives of primary education as stipulated in the new education policy.” Thus, in 1994, another Tigrinya-medium curriculum was developed and put into effect in 1995 (TRSEB Language Curriculum Developers Interview, October 2014). Shortage of Trained Human Resources to Employ Tigrinya as an MOI In pre-1991 Tigray, the TPLF Education Department provided Tigrinya-medium teacher training for the Hara-Meret primary school teachers. As a result, when the TPLF controlled Tigray, around 400 teachers had had TPLF/Hara-Meret Teacher Training Certificates and teaching experience in Tigrinya-medium education (HaraMeret Education Head Interview, September 2014). Following the downfall of the Derg in 1991, around 600 teachers returned home, almost all without any training in or experience with Tigrinya-medium education. This forced the regional government to provide training in this regard (TRSEB Language Educators Interview, October 2013). In the summer of 1991 in Mekelle, a six-weeks training was provided not only to the teachers without any training or experience in Tigrinya as MOI but also to those who had training and experiences. In my informants’ view, the training largely centered on the following issues: Introducing the writing system of Tigrinya, which included brief orientation and practices through working in groups of those with the Tigrinya-medium teaching experiences and those without Creating awareness of the importance of mother tongue-based education Providing pedagogical training for a mother tongue-based education system (Former TPLF Education Department Head, who became Head of the Tigray Education Bureau Interview, October 2014)

Thus, in 1992, Tigrinya-medium primary education continued all over Tigray with at least 1000 teachers who were trained or retrained in the 1991 summar training program. Consequently, in 1992, the Hara-Meret-based TPLF Education Department was reestablished in Mekelle as the Tigray Education Bureau (TEB). It was comprised of some of the former staff and other Tigrinya-native educators from other parts of Ethiopia. The TEB, having the mandate to manage primary, secondary, and primary teacher education systems of the region, reestablished the Hara-Meretbased Teacher Training Center as Adwa Teacher Training Institute (Adwa TTI), based in Adwa. According to an educator who was the founder of Adwa TTI, the institute was started with limited physical space and human resources. It started with some educators, subject area experts, and administrators of the Hara-Meretbased Teacher Training Center. The trainees in the summer training program were largely teachers of the Hara-Meret education system who didn’t have the required educational qualifications. Thus, Adwa TTI was made to start Tigrinya-medium teacher education in the summer of 1992. (Ex Adwa TTI Instructor Interview, October 2013)

Being asked their experiences with the use of Tigrinya as an MOI, informants who were new to the system explained the situation in a very satirical manner. For instance, one of the newly recruited geography instructors expressed his experience this way:

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

79

Having completed my BED with Education major and Geography minor in 1992, I joined the Adwa TTI. I was assigned to teach Geography but in Tigrinya. I should prepare my lessons in Tigrinya, but no resources were written in Tigrinya. The only means was to translate from English, although resources even in English were very scarce. The most scarcity I suffered, beyond what I could endure, was the capacity to express ideas I found in the English reference books in Tigrinya. I suffered getting Tigrinya words, concepts, and meanings equivalent to the English words and concepts. The trainees who had been in the TPLF education system were of great support. They provided me Tigrinya words and concepts immediately when they observed me troubling myself trying to express my ideas in Tigrinya while I was teaching. Teaching in Tigrinya was not just difficult but almost impossible for most of the instructors. (TTI Instructor Interview, December 2013)

In light of these three issues, it can be implied that the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in primary education and teacher training, post-1991 in Tigray, was not free from obstacles.

3.3.2.2

Tigrinya-Only as MOI in Tigray: Mechanisms and Agents

With peoples’ attitudes and ideologies on the one hand, and the ideology and aims of the TPLF as a policy agent on the other hand, Tigrinya continued as the MOI in Tigray. Yet, with the continuation of challenges and arguments, policy agents had to devise various mechanisms to perpetuate this practice. Here I examine the agencies and mechanisms involved. Individuals as LPP Agents As described above, people have been very inquisitive about the effectiveness of using Tigrinya as an MOI. As one educator said, Tigrinya as an MOI became the talking points of the public. People talked about how difficult and very problematic the shift from using Amharic to Tigrinya as an MOI was. Problems pertaining to correct use of Tigrinya orthography and grammar were crucial areas of concern for many. (TRSEB Language Educator, Interview, October 2014)

Individuals from the Tigrinya language community attempted to address these areas of concern, particularly dealing with standard use of Tigrinya, to guide teachers and others who started using the language in education and for other domains. According to the above informant, “two concerned individuals, Gebregziabher Bihon and Ataklti Hagos,10 requested that the TRSEB publish or distribute their works on Tigrinya Grammar and Tigrinya Orthography to address problems with using Tigrinya correctly.” The TRESB discussed the request, which led to establishing a committee11 to review and evaluate these papers and continue

10

Gebregziabher Bihon is an experienced teacher who had schooling in Eritrea and is a Tigrinya story writer. Ataklti Hagos is a TPLF member who had a lot of experience writing newspaper articles during the struggle period and also a TPLF historian. 11 The committee constituted three educators from the TRSEB, Mekelle Business College, and Tigray Regional State Culture and Sports Bureau. I have been informed by the first two that they were both educators in the pre-1991 Eritrea-Asmara. The first was a teacher, and the second was a Philosophy Lecturer with experience writing articles in Tigrinya and the History of Tigray. The

80

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

addressing such requests. In the meantime, according to one of the committee members, the committee came up with two new proposals. Organize a Tigrinya Language Conference: Instead of reviewing or evaluating individually instigated proposals or works, make an official Call for Papers on the Tigrinya Language and organize a conference in which all concerned would be invited and papers would be presented and discussed, and ways forward would be paved. Establish a Tigrinya Language Academy: The committee found establishing a Tigrinya language academy important to develop the language and create a standard Tigrinya in an institutionally organized and systematic manner.

When these two proposals were presented to the TRSEB Head, the Head agreed and requested that the committee develop project proposals for organizing the Tigrinya Language Symposium and establishing the Language Academy (RSEB Representative of the Committee Interview, October 2014). The committee developed and presented two proposals to the TRSEB Head. Then the Head, along with the committee, submitted the two proposals to the Tigray National Regional State President. The President, having discussed this with the Head and the committee, agreed to organize the symposium, and the regional government would support all aspects needed. To this end, various committees were established, and a representative of the first committee, who represented the Tigray Culture and Sports Bureau, was tasked to further refine the Tigrinya Language Academy proposal, to be presented in the Symposium. The Regional Government as an LPP Agent and the First Tigrinya Language Symposium as an LPP Mechanism Following the regional government’s decision to organize a conference on the Tigrinya language, the first committee established to address the requests was made up of three more members, renamed the Coordinating Committee, and chaired by the Head of TRSEB. During final preparations for the symposium, the coordinating committee was made up of key TPLF members12 and four supporting committees (first Tigrinya Language Symposium Document). The symposium, which was held in Mekelle, the regional capital, involved around 300 participants, including government officials, politicians, university lecturers, educators, teachers, and others from Ethiopia and Eritrea. It was largely financed by government and TPLF-affiliated non-governmental organizations13 (first Tigrinya Language Symposium Document).

third, from the TRSCSB, had long years of experience as a member of the Ethiopian Language Academy, which was established by the Derg in the 1970s. Thus, he was later assigned to develop a draft paper on establishing the Language Academy. 12 The four other members added had key political positions, such as a member of the regional government’s executive body, the Head of the Tigray Transport and Communication Bureau, the Head of the Tigray Culture and Sports Bureau, and the then Dean and later President of Mekelle University. All were members of the Central Committee of the TPLF. Four other committees, each constituting four key political figures or TPLF activists, were also established. 13 The organizations included the Regional State of Tigray Peoples’ Council, the Education Bureau, the Culture and Sports Bureau, the Ethiopian Air Force and local non-governmental organizations highly affiliated with the TPLF such as the Tigray Development Association (TDA), the Relief

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

81

In the symposium, 37 papers were presented, which all focused on various issues related to the Tigrinya language, including Tigrinya phonology, orthography, grammar, literature, history, Tigrinya as an official or working language, and the language of education in Tigray and Eritrea. It focused only on the language, histories, and literatures of the Tigrayan Nationality, despite the regional ethnic and linguistic diversity, the ideological foundations of the TPLF, and the regional and federal governments’ Constitutions and language policies. For instance, the title of the symposium, The first Tigrinya Language Symposium, shows that the conference centered only on the Tigrinya language. All of the objectives of the symposium (Appendix 5) revealed that the intention was to focus exclusively on Tigrinya, the dominant nationality’s language in Tigray and Eritrea. The papers presented all addressed various issues pertaining to the Tigrinya language. There were no papers about the other regional nationalities and their languages, Saho and Kunama. The agents of the symposium, having aimed at establishing a language academy exclusively for the Tigrinya language, had explicitly stated the need for establishing such an institution as one of the five key objectives of the symposium. Thus, of the 37 papers presented, one of the papers discussed the need to establish a Tigrinya Language Academy and focused entirely on the Tigrayan nationality and its languages. All of the objectives of the academy (Appendix 6) focused on the Tigrinya language and on studies pertaining to the Tigrayan nationality. For instance, the second objective particularly addressed a mechanism for preserving folktales of the Tigrayan nationality. Nothing is stated about other regional nationalities’ languages and literatures. Nothing is stated about whether language academies for the other nationalities would be developed. With the focus of the symposium and the proposal to establish the Tigrinya Language Academy, my curiosity to investigate the participants’ reactions was high, and I questioned one of the three members of the first founding committee, who explained the reactions of some of the participants: The participants’ reaction on this matter was so critical. They questioned why the conference had been made to focus entirely on Tigrinya, and they expressed their concern for the regional minority languages, Saho and Kunama. They said that such a focus on a Tigrinya language academy would lead to the ultimate submersion, and thus extinction, of the minority languages. (TRSEB Representative of the Committee Verification Interview, November 2014)

We see here that the concerns of individuals to address claimed language use problems led to the idea of standardizing the Tigrinya language, which in turn resulted in devising mechanisms to do so. Thus, organizing the language symposium and establishing a language academy only for Tigrinya were employed as strategies to perpetuate a dominant language policy. These ideas emerged from the concerns of micro-level agents (the two concerned individuals and the three committee

Society of Tigray (REST), and Sure Construction, a constituent company of the Endowment Fund for Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT).

82

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

members), and their ideas and mechanisms were supported by macro-level agents (the RSEB, the Regional State Government), which shows the interplay between micro- and macro-level policy agents and their underpinning overt or covert motives and ideologies. Shohamy (2006) describes the purposes of language academies as “institutions of prestige, authority, and power in terms of their views and “purist approaches to and . . . branches of standardization ideologies” (p. 65). The symposium was strongly supported and mainly organized by the regional government’s political and policy agents, which implies that they had the official support and recognition of the regional government. They were also supported by other agents, and their intended or unintended consequences were the exclusion of the other nationalities and their languages and dialects as a result of the intent to establish a Tigrinya language academy. The Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT) as a LPP Agent, and its Mechanisms Having organized and supported the symposium, the regional government found from the reactions of some of the participants that the agendas, and particularly the proposal to establish the Tigrinya language academy, were critical and politically sensitive. This seems to have led the regional government to establish an institution (CAT) responsible for carrying out language and cultural matters of the regional state. CAT Objectives and Programs A year after the first Tigrinya Language Symposium was held, the Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT) was established in 1988 EC/1996. Article 2 of the CAT foundation document states that CAT is a non-governmental and non-political organization (CAT, Nov. 1993 EC, p. 6). However, the following appears on the cover page of the same document; two points that could imply the organization’s strong ideological affiliation with the TPLF. Our Heritages Are Part of Our Development! As Our Struggle has Confirmed Our Right to the Use Our Language, So Does Our Determination to Continue to the Success of Our Struggle!

Furthermore, Article 5 of the document stipulates that the objective(s) of CAT is: To critically study, preserve, and develop the Tigray People’s culture that is language, literature, drawing/art, music, theatre/drama, architecture, history, sport, and cultural/ traditional heritages; to make people aware, be involved, and use them; to make these tools for facilitating our development (CAT, 1993 EC, p. 6)

In Article 5, CAT’s list of programs in Article 6 (Appendix 7), and the contents of CAT’s foundation document, there is no word or issue that explicitly refers to the two other nationalities and their languages (Irob and Kunama). These can only be implied from the more inclusive phrases, such as “Tigray People’s culture that is language” (Article 5); Tigray languages and literatures, Tigray Art, etc. (Article 6, No. 1–8). Words and issues referring to Tigrinya are explicitly stated. For instance, the specific programs stated in No. 1, Article 6, reveal the extreme focus

3.3 Multilingual Policy Post-1991 and its Appropriation in Tigray

83

given to the Tigrinya language, especially in creating and practicing a “Standard or Research-based Tigrinya” in education and other domains of life. CAT on Language Academy Issues The idea of establishing a language academy for resolving problems related to Tigrinya as an MOI during early post-1991 Tigray led to the idea of creating standardized Tigrinya, which resulted in the first committee being established to review individuals’ papers on this topic. The committee, mainly one of the members, developed a project proposal for establishing a Tigrinya Language Academy, and the draft proposal was presented in the first Tigrinya Language Symposium. Yet some of the participants disagreed with the proposal to establish a language academy only for the Tigrinya language. This led to the establishment of CAT to deal with language and cultural issues of Tigray. As described above, the objectives of CAT were more or less inclusive of all nationalities and languages of Tigray, though languages other than Tigrinya are not explicitly stated in the programs and contents of the document. Probably as a means to make the government not have explicit or official roles or responsibilities on language matters of the regional state, CAT took the responsibility for developing a proposal to establish a language academy and conduct seminars or symposiums pertaining to language and cultural matters. Thus, CAT redrafted the project proposal for establishing a “Tigrinya Language Academy” (which can be referred as the 1987 EC Draft) and drafted a new document for establishing a language academy (which can be referred as 1993 EC Draft). 1987 EC Draft Proposal Title: Establishing a Tigrinya Language Academy 1993 EC Draft Proposal Title: Establishing a Tigray Language Academy In conformity with the 1993 draft title, the introduction describes the recognition of not only the dominant language, Tigrinya, as the 1987 draft did, but also the two other regional nationalities and languages, which at least have official recognition in the regional Constitution. Because of the language-based impositions of the past, the languages of Tigray were on their way to extinction and were not showing any development. Consequently, Tigrinya, a dominant regional language and an official working language of the regional government, had a better position and status, and those of Irob and Kunama were much worse. Thus, if we want not only Tigrinya but also Irob and Kunama to be languages of science and technology, the media, education, and literature, we need to support them properly. With such foundational points for the need to establish an institution with such functions or roles, the 1993 project proposal expressed the objective of the Tigray Language Academy as follows: The main objective of the Tigray Language Academy is to study, preserve, and develop languages and literatures of Tigray. (Draft Document, 1993, Article 2, p. 3)

It can be claimed that the article was inclusive of the three regional nationality languages – Tigrinya, Saho, and Kunama. This draft document was not, however, an end but rather a draft paper for discussion, to pave strategies for its further development. To this end, the document was accompanied by a “Terms of Reference”

84

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

(TOR) document, which described the processes or work done so far work and planned to be done. Dealing with one of the planned activities, the TOR showed the need to conduct survey studies to support or complement the gaps of the document in progress. Thus, a survey on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI by Non-Tigrinya Mother Tongue-Children – the Irob and Kunama Nationalities’ School Children – was conducted in consultation with Mekelle University and the Tigray Teacher’s Association. CAT and the Second Language Symposium CAT, as described above, put Tigray languages and cultural issues as its key agenda items. Besides carrying out actions toward establishing the Tigray Languages Academy, CAT took responsibility for organizing the second language symposium. Thus, in March 1999 EC, CAT organized another language symposium as a continuation of the first symposium conducted in 1987 EC This symposium involved 164 participants from Ethiopia, of which the majority were from Tigray; 16 papers and study reports were presented. The number of participants and papers presented was almost half that of the first symposium. This might have happened due to the exclusion of participants from Eritrea. Yet, the fact that the second symposium included the three Tigray languages, the number of participants and papers should have been more than those involved in the first symposium. Just looking at the title of the second language symposium, it can be inferred that it was more inclusive of the three regional nationality languages, different from the first one, which had a Tigrinya-only focus. 1987 EC first Symposium Title: first Tigrinya Language Symposium 1999 EC second Symposium Title: second Tigray Languages Symposium We can see in the titles the shift from Tigrinya-only to the languages of Tigray as a whole. However, were the agendas or the content of the symposium in conformity with the overt ideological manifestation of the symposium and the organization? CAT announced a Call for Papers, which stated that the organization planned to organize the second symposium on the languages of Tigray. Through this announcement, CAT invited all interested parties to submit their research papers/abstracts dealing with the Tigrinya, Saho, and Kunama languages and literatures and their use in different domains of life. A substantial number of studies on the Tigrinya language were submitted. No papers dealing with Saho and Kunama were submitted. Conducting a symposium without any papers on the minority languages would be in contradiction to the organization’s ideology and objectives, in contradiction to the title of the symposium, and would face extreme reactions from the participants for being as exclusive as the first symposium was. So, an urgent solution was required. To address this need, CAT invited two educators, one from Mekelle University and the other from the TRSEB. Both had conducted studies on the Saho language. The former had been involved as a research assistant for the survey study on the Kunama language, and the latter belongs to the Irob community. CAT requested that

References

85

the two conduct studies on the two languages, which would then be presented at the symposium. When the former agreed to conduct two preliminary survey studies on the Saho and Kunama languages, the latter agreed to come up with a study on the oral literature of the Saho language. Facilitating the studies of the two languages, CAT covered a few days’ data collection allowances for the two researchers. Thus, out of the 16 papers presented in the second language symposium, 12 focused on Tigrinya, 2 on Saho, 1 on Kunama, and 1 on Tigray language policy issues. This helped CAT to address the concerns mentioned above and thus be in line with its objectives of being inclusive of the three regional languages.

3.4

Conclusion

The many shifts and developments analyzed in this chapter reveal the dynamic process of language policy and planning, with its serious consequences, risks, and political and ideological character. To properly understand language policy in settings such as Tigray, in the stages and phases of response to Ethiopia-wide political developlments and dramatic political upheaval, is to set the regional and sub-regional dynamics into a multi-level interplay with the national. Multiple agents at different levels exercise influence and power, and so tension and conflict are ever present, but the aspirations put into language policy and planning to achieve non-linguistic social, economic, and political goals run deep for all groups. Chapter 4 looks more closely at the ideology, practice, and policy of language in Irob Wereda.

References14 Aregawi Berhe. 2008. A political history of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (1975-1991): Revolt, ideology and mobilization in Ethiopia. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Verije Universiteit, Amsterdam. Bahru Zewde. 2002. Pioneers of change in Ethiopia. The reformist intellectuals of the early twentieth century. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press. Bender, M. L. 1985. Ethiopian language policy, 1974–1981. Anthropological Linguistics, 27(3), 273–279.

14

The convention for citation of Ethiopian authors is followed here for Ethiopian names, which is an individual’s personal name followed by a separate patronym (the given or first name of a person’s father) followed in some cases by an avonymic, or an earlier male ancestor. These are not separated by a comma or other punctuation. Unless an indivudal has modified his or her name to prefer initials for some components, all the relevant names are used in citation and referencing.

86

3 Conflict, Resistance, and Tension: Tigray and LPP

Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., and Trumper-Hecht, N. 2006. Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7–30. Daniel A., and Abebayehu T. 2006. Instructional language policy in Ethiopia: Motivated by politics or the educational needs of children? Planning and Changing Journal, 37(3/4), 151–168. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 2002. Sustainable development and poverty reduction program. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED). Addis Ababa. https://www.imf.org/external/np/prsp/2002/eth/01/ Landry, R., and Bourhis, R. Y. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. Liddicoat, A. J. and Baldauf, R.B. Jr. 2008. Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat and R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning in local contexts (pp. 3–17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, S. 1998. In the beginning was the missionaries’ word: The European invention of an African language: The case of Shona in Zimbabwe. In K. K. Prah (Ed.), Between distinction and extinction: The harmonisation and standardisation of African languages (pp. 157–164). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press. Marcus, H. G. 1995. The life and times of Menelik II: Ethiopia 1844-1913. Lawrenceville, NJ: Red Sea Press. May, S. 2006. Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 255–272). Oxford: Blackwell. May, S. (2012). Language and Minority Rights: ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed). New York: Routledge. Ministry of Education. 1980. Objectives and directives of education. Addis Ababa. Ministry of Education. 1994. The new Ethiopian education and training policy. Addis Ababa. Negarit Gazeta. 1955. Fifteenth year, no. 2 of 1955. The Revised Constitution of Ethiopia. Program of the National Democratic Revolution. 1976. Transitional Military Administration of Ethiopia. Ricento, T. (Ed.). 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. Shinn, D. H., and Ofcansky, T. P. 2013. Historical dictionary of Ethiopia. US: Scarecrow Press. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Oxford: Routledge. Spolsky, B, and Cooper, R. 1991. The languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spolsky, B., and Shohamy, E. 1999. The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tsehaye Teferra. 1977. A sociolinguistic survey of language use and attitudes towards language in Ethiopia: Implications for language policy in education. (Unpublished PhD dissertation.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Young, J. 2006. Peasant revolution in Ethiopia: The Tigray People’s Liberation Front, 1975-1991. (Original PhD research 1997) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 4

Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

4.1

Introduction

In this sociolinguistic and demographic context, which the Irob Nationality’s local association claimed was a threat to its sociolinguistic identity, and the fact that only Tigrinya was the medium of primary education and a working language of all official domains of the regional state, some elites from the Irob nationality started to be concerned about the survival of the Irob nationality’s language, Saho, and its ethnolinguistic and cultural identity. Describing the implications of the sociolinguistic and demographic context to the Irob ethno-linguistic identity, the Irob Development Association (IDA) foundational document states: Irob has a population of about 30,000 people living in about 900 km, surrounded by much larger ethnic groups. It is impressive that this small ethnic minority managed to preserve much of its ethnic identity under the domination of the rather huge neighboring majority (sandwiched between the politically and demographically dominant Tigrayans in both Ethiopia and Eritrea). (IDA, n.d.)

This led me to examine the Saho LPP processes (the reasons for its creation and the ways it was developed and appropriated) to understand the language attitudes/ ideologies, language policy, and language practices in the Irob schools and community. To this end, a sociolinguistic survey in two Irob Wereda primary schools (one urban and one rural) and in an urban Irob community was conducted. This section examines language ideology in these two schools and communities (the students’ and teachers’ language preferences and attitudes; language practices, language as it was used; and language policies, language expected to be used in classes, outside classes, and at home and in the community) and describes the reactions of the Irob people to the Tigrinya-only as MOI policy, based on data from interviews and observations.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4_4

87

88

4.2

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Language Practices and Linguistic Landscapes

The sociolinguistic survey conducted in Irob Wereda was accompanied by classroom, school, and community observations. Ten classroom observations of grade 5 and grade 6 classes were conducted, as well as observations of the school and urban community to understand the language practices and linguistic landscapes across these three important domains of life – classroom, school, and community – in which language policies and practices shape and are shaped by various contextual factors.

4.2.1

Language Practices: Classroom, School, and Community

Classroom observations conducted in the two schools revealed that Saho was taught as a subject only until grade 6. The teaching of Saho as a subject was approved in 2001 (by the Wereda and regional government bodies) and began in grade 1 in 2002, and one grade was added each year. The Irob nationality had requested that Saho not only be taught as a subject but also that it be used as an MOI. I observed media reports and interviews with members of the Irob community and Wereda regional officials claiming that “Saho is used in education,” which I found to contradict the information I had received from close informants (ETV, Tigrinya program, February, 2006 EC). I suspected that these individuals were claiming this because they did not distinguish between “learning a language” and “learning through a language,” between using Saho “as a subject” or “as an MOI.” In addition to this observation, I asked some of the teachers and students I came across while conducting the classroom and school observations. They replied that Saho was taught as a subject, and they learned the other academic subjects in Tigrinya. Following this response, I asked them if they encountered problems understanding the Tigrinya-medium lessons or expressing their ideas in Tigrinya, and the majority responded, “Yes, of course.” This was what I had seen when I was observing classes, where I observed not only the students but also the teachers code switching to the Saho language. It was quite common for the teachers to ask questions and give examples in Saho (e.g., to describe a cultural event, to talk about the Irob community’s approach to transferring information). This implies that, although Tigrinya was the de facto regional MOI, Saho seemed to serve as the school-based de facto language in education. I also observed multiple uses of language in the school compound, for informal purposes such as playing, conversing, and discussing, and often Saho was used. Students were observed playing together and speaking in Saho. Teachers were observed talking to each other using Saho and giving orders to students in Saho. While talking with the school director, a native Saho-speaking student (12 or 13 years of age) talked to me in Saho, because he couldn’t talk in Tigrinya. The

4.2 Language Practices and Linguistic Landscapes

89

school director intervened and translated the student’s message, which was addressed to me. Similar to language use in the school context, in the urban community, which we1 made the center of our field visit, I observed two types of language practices. Tigrinya was often used in formal contexts, such as in the Irob Wereda Information and Communication Office and among Irob Wereda administrators, although there were some instances in which Saho was also used, especially when staff members were talking together. Irob community members often used both languages, code switching to Tigrinya while having conversations in their mother tongue, Saho.

4.2.2

Linguistic Landscapes: Urban Community, School, and Classroom

The center of my field visit to the Irob Wereda was in the Wereda capital, an urban town called Dowhan. I was told that Dowhan was not the capital of the Wereda before the Ethio-Eritrean boarder conflicts and war of 1998. The capital at that time was Alie-Tena, a small town claimed to have been a bone of contention for the border dispute (Gatekeeper Interview, June 2015). Since then Dowhan has become center or capital of the Irob Wereda and the seat for all Wereda government offices. As a result, Wereda now has more urban features, with some two-story buildings, hotels, and cafeterias. With such urban features, examination of the linguistic landscape of the town reveals that all of the names of signs of private and business organizations and government offices were in Tigrinya. At the same time, public signs and names of hotels and cafeterias had Tigrinya or Ge’ez meanings in addition to being written in Tigrinya. Having heard or asked the personal names of Saho native individuals and students, I found that almost all of the names were the same as those used by Tigrinya speakers, whose names often carry Biblical or indigenous Tigrinya meanings. The few exceptions to this are personal names such as Asa, Alie, Duri, and Wassie. However, examining the names of places, such as mountains and rivers, I found that almost all of them were indigenous Saho names with Saho meanings. For example, Dowhan, AlieTena, Alie-Gheda, Endal-Gheda, Asa-Bella, Assimba, and Gulo-Mex’eda. In the school, I found that almost everything was written in either Tigrinya or English. From the billboards at the school gates, to everything posted or written in the school compound – the staff room, director’s office, school libraries, and

Here the pronoun “we‟ is used, because the survey study involved three researchers from Mekelle University (two as research assistants and I, as the main researcher). This was possible with the support from Mekelle University, which provided us a vehicle and a driver, which made our field stay easy. I would like to express my appreciation to the concerned bodies of the University, thanking them a lot. 1

90

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

laboratories – everything was in Tigrinya. The two libraries I visited had more books in English than in Tigrinya. I never came across a single book, including a textbook, written in the Saho language. In the classrooms, almost all of the teaching and learning posters, teaching aids, and notices were written in Tigrinya. Nothing except the Saho Writing System Posters, displayed in grade 1 and 2 classes, was written in Saho.

4.3

Responses of Participants in the Survey

The participants in the school survey were 20 teachers and 80 students, from the urban school and the rural school (10 teachers from each school). Of the 20 teachers, 12 (60%) were female and 8 (40%), were male. Table 4.1 shows that 16 of the 20 teachers (80%) belong to the Irob nationality and claimed to speak Saho as their mother tongue (MT), while the remaining 4 (20%) belong to the Tigrayan nationality and speak Tigrinya as their MT.

4.3.1

Teacher Participants

Looking at the qualifications of the teachers, 6 (30%) had a diploma and the majority, 14 (70%) had a BA. With teachers with the required qualifications (diploma and above) teaching in primary education (grades 1–8) and 16 (80%) from the Irob nationality, it can be implied that the two schools have the required human capacity to run a Saho-medium primary school program. This evidence, which conforms with the Irob nationality’s assertion that it has the required human Table 4.1 Teacher participants in one school

Bio-data question items Sex M F Subject you teach Saho Tigrinya Other subjects Qualifications Dip. BA Ethnic identity/MT Irob/Saho Tigray/Tigrinya Amhara/Amharic

Teachers’ number and percentile Urban school Rural school Frequency Percentile Frequency 6 60 2 4 40 8 – – – – – – 10 100 10 6 60 8 4 40 2 7 70 9 3 30 1 – – –

Percentile 20 80 – – 100 80 20 90 10 –

4.3 Responses of Participants in the Survey

91

resources, contradicts the regional government agents’ assumption that the Irob nationality lacks the required human resources to run such a program.

4.3.2

Student Participants

A total of 80 students participated in the survey. Students in grades 5 and 6 were selected randomly, in that we talked with those who were available outside the classroom during our school visits. We sought to have an equal number of males and females. Thus, of the 40 students from each of the two schools, the survey included 47 female and 33 male students out of the 41 grade 5 and 39 grade 6 students (Table 4.2).

4.3.3

Participants’ Ethnic Identity and Mother Tongue

Teacher participants’ mother tongue, Saho, was almost the same as that of their mothers. Of the 20 teachers, 16 (80%) claimed that they speak Saho as their mother tongue and that the mothers of 16 of them (80%) and the fathers of 15 of them (70%) speak Saho as their mother tongue. With respect to the students, 69 of the 80 students (88.46%) speak Saho as their mother tongue and they stated that 71 of their mothers (88.75%) and 62 of their fathers (77.5%) speak Saho as their mother tongue (Table 4.3).

4.3.4

Participants’ Language Proficiency and Choice of MOI

Both teachers and students claimed that their Saho language proficiency level was the highest, with Tigrinya proficiency second, and Amharic third. Similarly, the majority of teachers and students put Saho as their number one choice for MOI, Tigrinya second, and Amharic third. When we compare the choices of MOI among the teachers and students, we find that 11 of the 20 teachers chose Saho as MOI, although 16 claimed that their Saho proficiency was the highest of the three Table 4.2 Student participants in one school Bio-data question items Sex M F Grade 5 6

Students’ responses Urban school Rural school Frq. % Frq. % 15 37.5 18 45 25 62.5 22 55 21 52.5 20 50 19 47.5 20 50

92

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Table 4.3 Participants’ and their parents’ mother tongue and ethnic identity

Question items Father’s mother tongue

Mother’s mother tongue

Participant’s mother tongue

Participant’s ethnic identity

Responses Teachers Frq. % 15 75 5 25 – – 16 80 4 20 – – 16 80 4 20 – – 16 80 4 20 – –

Language/ethnic identity Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Irob Tigrayan Amhara

Students Frq. 62 16 02 71 09 – 69 09 – 71 09 –

% 77.5 20 2.5 88.75 11.25 – 88.46 11.54 – 88.75 11.25 –

Table 4.4 Participants’ own language proficiency ratings and MOI choices Respondents Languages Proficiency level rating Teachers Saho Tigrinya Amharic Students Saho Tigrinya Amharic MOI choice rating Teachers Saho Tigrinya Amharic Students Saho Tigrinya Amharic

Frq. 1 16 04 – 60 19 01 11 08 01 63 16 01

% 80 20 – 75 23.75 1.25

Frq. 2 02 16 02 13 60 07

55 40 5 78.75 20 1.25

08 10 02 13 60 07

% 10 80 10 16.25 75 8.75

Frq. 3 – 02 18 07 01 72

% – 10 90 8.75 1.25 90

40 50 10 16.25 75 8.75

02 01 17 07 01 72

10 5 85 8.75 1.25 90

languages. Of the 80 students, 63 chose Saho as MOI, and 60 rated Saho as their highest proficiency level. It is interesting to note that 69 of the 80 students claimed that their mother tongue is Saho, 60 of the 80 claimed that their Saho language proficiency is the best of the three languages, and 63 chose Saho as MOI, as shown in Table 4.4. On the other hand, although Tigrinya was used as MOI, only 19 of the 80 students rated their Tigrinya proficiency at Level 1, and only 16 chose the use of Tigrinya as MOI. This seems to indicate how challenging Tigrinya as MOI is for the Saho native children.

4.3 Responses of Participants in the Survey

93

Moreover, although the students had learned Tigrinya as a subject for no fewer than 5 or 6 years and Amharic as subject for no fewer than 3 or 4 years, most of them (60) rated their Tigrinya proficiency at Level 2 and their Amharic proficiency at Level 3 (72). It appears that access to and uses of language, being a tool for social stratification and power, has prevented most of the Saho mother tongue students from becoming proficient in the official or the working languages of the region and the country, Tigrinya and Amharic respectively. In relation to the linguistic human rights of individual citizens, especially those who speak minority languages, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) argues that individuals must learn in their mother tongues while at the same time having the opportunity to become proficient in the language (s) of wider communication and in the official language of the country.

4.3.5

LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences at Home and Outside the Home

Teachers and students were asked about language policies and practices at home and outside of their home and their language preferences. Table 4.5 shows that both the teachers and the students claimed that the language they were expected to use, the language they actually used, and the language they preferred to use at home and out of the home was primarily Saho. Most of the interviewees (15 teachers and 67 students) said that the language they were expected to use at home was Saho, and 16 teachers and 71 students said that the language they actually used at home was Saho; 13 teachers and 68 students said that the language they preferred to use at home was Saho. Table 4.5 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used at home and outside the home

Respondents Teachers

Contexts HOME

OUT OF HOME

Students

HOME

OUT OF HOME

Languages Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic

Home and out of home Lg. Use and attitude Expected Preferred Practiced Frq. % Frq. % Frq. % 15 75% 13 65% 16 80% 05 25% 07 35% 04 20% – – – – – – 14 70% 15 75% 15 75% 04 20% 03 15% 03 15% 02 10% 02 10% 02 10% 67 83.75 68 85 71 88.75 12 15 11 13.75 09 11.25 01 1.25 01 1.25 – 65 81.25 68 87.18 71 88.75 12 15 09 11.54 08 10 03 3.75 01 1.28 01 1.25

94

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Outside the home, 14 teachers and 65 students said that the language they were expected to use was Saho, 15 teachers and 71 students said that the language they actually used was Saho; 15 teachers and 68 students said that Saho was the language they preferred to use outside the home.

4.3.6

In-School LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences

The teachers and students were asked about classroom language policy, the language that others expected them to use in the classroom (students, teachers, the director, school supervisors, and the Wereda or regional government agents); classroom language practices, the language actually used in the classroom teaching and learning process; and their classroom language preferences, the language they preferred to use in the classroom. Almost all of the students, 76 of the 80, said that they were expected to use Tigrinya with their teachers. 51 students said that Tigrinya was the language they were expected to use with other students in the classroom (during pair work and group discussions), and 28 said Saho. 66 students said that they preferred to use Saho to communicate with their teachers, and 69 said that they preferred to use Saho to communicate with other students. However, as shown in Table 4.6, most of the students said that they used Tigrinya to communicate with their teachers in the classroom, while 55 students claimed that they used Saho; 25 claimed that they used Tigrinya with other students in the classroom.

Table 4.6 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used in the classroom

Respondents Teachers

Contexts When teaching

When facilitating activities Students

With teachers

With students

Languages Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic Saho Tigrinya Amharic

Classroom language policy and attitudes Expected Preferred Practiced Frq. % Frq. % Frq. % – – 11 55 13 65 20 100 09 45 07 35 – – – – – – – – 15 75 15 75 20 100 05 25 05 25 – – – – – – 02 2.5 66 80.49 06 7.5 76 95 16 19.51 72 90 02 2.5 – – 02 2.5 28 35 69 86.25 55 68.75 51 63.75 11 13.75 25 31.25 01 1.25 – – – –

4.3 Responses of Participants in the Survey

95

All 20 teachers said that Tigrinya was the language they were expected to use in the classroom, to teach and to facilitate classroom activities such as group work or discussions. As far as their preferred language, 11 teachers said that they preferred to use Saho, and 9 said that they preferred to use Tigrinya. As far as the language actually used, 13 of the 16 Saho native teachers said that they also use Saho in the teaching and learning process; 7 teachers said that they use Tigrinya. As mentioned above, my classroom observations revealed that most teachers often code-switched to the students’ mother tongue, Saho. When asked why this shift happened, the teachers said that “they themselves and their students are less proficient in Tigrinya,” which forced the teachers and students to switch to Saho as a way of easing the linguistic barrier they encountered (Post-Classroom Observation Interview with Teachers, June 2015). Code switching to Saho, even though both teachers and students stated that the language expected to be used in the classroom was Tigrinya, seemed to ease the linguistic barrier created in the children’s education. Saho, being the language often practiced in the classroom, served as a de facto medium of instruction, with both the teachers and the students being agents of the Saho language-based-resistance school language policy. This confirms Spolsky’s assertion that “language policy exists where it has not been made explicit or established by authority” (2004, p. 8). Thus, any study on language policy and planning should examine not only what is explicitly stated in official documents but also what the language practices are on the ground.

4.3.7

Out-Of-School LP and Practices and Participants’ Language Preferences

Table 4.7 shows that most teachers said that the language expected, preferred, and used with teachers and students outside the classroom was either Saho or Saho and Tigrinya. In terms of the language they were expected to use with other teachers outside the classroom, 9 teachers said Saho, 6 said both Saho and Tigrinya, and 5 said Tigrinya. In terms of the language they were expected to use with students, 12 teachers said Saho, 3 said Tigrinya and Saho, and 5 said Tigrinya. In terms of the language they preferred to use outside the classroom with teachers and students, most of the teachers, 15 out of 20, said that preferred to use Saho, and 5, Tigrinya. 14 of the teachers said that the language they actually used to communicate with teachers and students outside the classroom was Saho, and 6 said Tigrinya. When the students were asked what language they were expected to use outside the classroom with teachers and students, 56 responded that they were expected to use Tigrinya with their teachers, and 46 said that they were expected to use Saho with other students. As to their language preference, 53 said that they preferred to use Saho with their teachers, and 64, that they prefered to use Saho with other students. In terms of the language used outside the classroom with teachers,

96

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Table 4.7 Teachers’ and students’ views on the language expected, preferred, and used outside the classroom

Respondents Teachers

Contexts With teachers

With students

Students

With teachers

With students

Languages Saho Tigrinya Saho and Tigrinya Saho Tigrinya Saho and Tigrinya Saho Tigrinya Saho and Tigrinya Saho Tigrinya Saho and Tigrinya

Outside the classroom/school language policy, practices, and preferences Expected Preferred Practiced Frq. % Frq. % Frq. % 09 45 15 75 14 70 05 25 05 25 06 30 06 30 – – – – 12 60 15 75 14 70 05 25 05 25 06 30 03 15 – – – – 09 11.25 53 66.25 16 20 56 70 16 20 25 31.25 15 18.75 11 13.75 39 48.75 46 57.5 64 62.14 61 76.25 14 17.5 11 10.68 11 13.75 20 25 28 27.18 08 10

16 students said Saho, 39 said both Saho and Tigrinya, and 25 said Tigrinya. In terms of the language used with other students, the majority of students, 61, said Saho, 8 said both Saho and Tigrinya, and 11 said Tigrinya.

4.4

Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob Nationality

The continuation of only Tigrinya as the medium of instruction (MOI) throughout Tigray is often claimed to have ideological, political, and pedagogical implications. Its use for all nationalities in the regional state has been a linguistic imposition upon the non-Tigrinya mother tongue groups. Tigrinya as the only MOI of the region was considered a threat to the survival of other languages and to the linguistic and cultural identity of the Irob Nationality. In response to my questions about the use of Tigrinya as the MOI, a Saho native educator said, “These days you find Tigrinya words within the Saho language used among Saho language speakers who live even in the lowland areas” (Saho Native Educator Interview, October 2014). Another Saho speaker responded, “The fate of the minority language will be endangered . . . although federalism is mainly concerned with minority protection and promotion” (Saho Native Educator, Questionnaire, December 2013). Another Saho speaker said that with such monolingual language policy and practice, “the mutual trust loses its taste and brings skepticism over time” (Saho Native Educator, Questionnaire, December 2013).

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

97

The use of the regionally dominant language in a multilingual context also has educational implications. One educator said that the Saho children are “highly pre-occupied with understanding the Tigrinya language” instead of “being focused on meaning making or understanding the content” (Saho Native Educator, Interview, October 2014). Another mentioned that the use of a non-mother tongue language in education “causes additional burden for the students, and they are forced to focus only on the language, not the content. Therefore, it often leaves them in a dilemma” (TRSEB Educator, Questionnaire, November 2014). My interview with a director of a rural primary school in Irob Wereda revealed that almost all of the children are Saho native speakers, 401 out of the 404 children in grades 1–8. The director said that “the most challenging factor the school is facing is the fact that almost all the children do not either hear or speak Tigrinya. Yet, they are taught through Tigrinya” (Irob Wereda School Director, Interview, June 2015). The CAT survey pointed out that in classroom situations where Saho native teachers and students find expressing themselves in Tigrinya difficult, they are often observed code switching to the Saho language (Unpublished Study Report, 2000), which agrees with my observations and interviews. My interview with a member of the research team of the CAT survey showed that the use of Tigrinya as the only MOI for the education of Saho native school children is a critical problem. During the survey study, we asked Saho-speaking school children the question, “What is the subject you find most difficult to understand?” The majority responded, “Tigrinya.” If this is so, imagine how difficult it would be to learn other subjects through Tigrinya, a language claimed as the most difficult by the school children. (Mekelle University Language Educator and Linguist, Interview, October 2014)

The linguist who has conducted research on the Saho language remarked that: With Saho being under a threat of extinction, various studies of the language need to be conducted by those concerned, so that it would be ultimately used as a language of instruction in the primary school education system. (Esayas Tajebe, 2nd Tigray Languages Symposium, 1999 EC, pp. 143–144)

Given the information and quotes here, the use of only Tigrinya in education seems to have meant a de facto continuation of a hegemonic language policy in Tigray. Given the dominant language group’s power, the dominant language’s development and status, and the mechanism used to perpetuate the policy, the minority language groups are expected to comply with its continuation. Cognizant of the consequences of complying with the policy, individuals from the Saho language community initiated and undertook a resistance stance and processes. The next section describes why and how Saho-speaking individuals initiated this process and the micro and macro layers of the Saho community’s language policy and planning.

98

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

4.4.1

The Irob Nationality’s LPP Resistance Process: Agency and Mechanisms

Contemporary LPP research, which is also called Critical LPP, asserts that in sociopolitical contexts where language policy decisions made from the top or by those in power do not reflect the language community’s language ideologies and practices, the language community could react against those decisions and undertake different initiatives to resist, negotiate, or change the context. In line with this assertion, the fact that Tigrinya is the de facto MOI for all regional nationalities has led the Irob Nationality to carry out first individually initiated and then a community-based counter-hegemonic LPP process for the use of the Saho language as an MOI for Irob Nationality children’s primary education. This section examines the factors that led concerned Saho native educators to initiate and get engaged with Saho LPP processes. It investigates the agencies involved and the mechanisms employed in carrying out the community-based LPP for the Irob nationality. Finally, it examines the interactions among the multiple policy layers involved in implementing the processes (creating and appropriating the LPP).

4.4.1.1

Individuals as LPP Agents

Individuals, mainly Saho native educators or teachers, started to question the linguistic and educational implications of the hegemonic language policy. Besides, they had been informed of the findings of the CAT survey of the use of the Tigrinya language in the education of Saho children, described above. Thus, they informally discussed what could be done and held an informal, consultative discussion with one of the researchers, a linguist, who had conducted some studies on the Saho language. He advised them that it would be good to start with developing an orthography for the language, so it could be used as an MOI. But, how to fund such a project remained a question. While these individuals were considering this question, they met a Catholic Saho native nun, Aba Abraham Hailu, who had worked in the Sudan with the Catholic Mission. In discussion with some of these individuals, she asked about the quality of education in Tigray and in the Irob Wereda. This gave them the opportunity to describe the uses of language in primary school education for Saho-speaking children, and they pointed out that “the quality of education in the Irob Wereda is deteriorating from time to time . . . since they are taught in Tigrinya, which is not the children’s mother tongue” (ILCA Chairperson, Interview, October 2013). One of the group members told me, We were very concerned about the effects of the use of Tigrinya as an MOI for Saho children’s education. We, thus, discussed the matter with a linguist from Mekelle University, and he advised us to begin with development of an orthography. Aba Abraham Hailu, being concerned with this matter, promised to provide us some amount of money to facilitate the

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

99

various activities in so doing. (Saho Native Educator and TC Member, Interview, October 2014)

Given the urgency of the matter, these individuals immediately established a technical committee (TC),2 made up of those who had initiated the issue and other educators and scholars. The TC was immediately tasked to carry out the Saho Corpus Study, which led to the development of an orthography for the Saho language. With regard to the role of Saho native individuals in the Saho language policy and planning efforts, the ILCA minutes dated 21/11/2000 EC (Appendix 8) and a letter from the Irob Wereda Council, 12/03/2001 EC, said that the commitment and endeavors of the Saho native individuals were immense. This commitment of individuals to their language and community was described by a Saho community elder as follows, according to one of the initiators: You know how the Saho community elders described those who initiated and developed the Saho language policy issues to the end! During the past, our young generation used to grow up in and then ‘rain out forever’ from the Irob community. Now, we have witnessed you (the young who carried out the Saho LPP) to grow in and ‘to rain in’ your community (i.e., bring back something good such as orthography and policy to the Saho language and the Irob people). (Saho Native Educator and Member of TC, Interview, October 2014)

4.4.1.2

Saho Community-Based Committees as LPP Agents

Following the establishment of the TC, establishing another committee responsible for overseeing the activities on the Saho LPP processes and for coordinating the efforts of the Saho language communities was crucial. Thus, the individuals, in consultation with the Irob Development Association (IDA), formed a Coordinating Committee.3 The Coordinating Committee, having commenced its duty, established a Consultative Committee,4 responsible for providing support and advice to the Technical Committee and facilitating its activities. Thus, being supported by the Coordinating and Consultative Committees, the TC, now in an organized way, continued to conduct a corpus study for developing an orthography of the Saho language.

2

The Technical Committee consisted of six Saho-speaking educators with a BA in English Language or Linguistics, two researchers with an MA in Descriptive Linguistics, and an expat professor in Linguistics from Mekelle University. 3 The Coordinating Committee consisted of 12 representatives from Saho communities who lived in Addis Ababa, Mekelle, Adigrat, and Irob Wereda. 3 of the 12 members were members of IDA and representatives of the last 3 Saho community areas above. All the members of the Coordinating Committee were native Saho speakers. The Coordinating Committee was chaired by Aba Abraham Hailu who, besides being one of the founders of the Saho LPP initiatives, largely financed the costs of the LPP processes. 4 The Consultative Committee consisted of 20 Saho native speakers from Mekelle, Adigrat, and Dowhan, the capital of the Irob Wereda.

100

4.4.1.3

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Corpus Planning: Developing an Orthography for Saho

Corpus planning, which among other things involves orthography development for a language, is an important element of language policy and planning. It is often considered to be a language planning element concerned with only the linguistic features of a language and is assumed to be the work of linguistic professionals or experts and to not require a political decision, as status planning does. Thus, the TC was primarily engaged with corpus planning, which could further lead to acquisition planning. The TC immediately started carrying out research related to developing the orthography. However, given the fact that the Saho language already had an orthography developed for the literacy program of the Derg, the Ge’ez script, and that an orthography already existed for the Saho of Eritrea, the Latin script, I asked why developing an orthography had become a primary concern. Addressing this question, a member of the TC responded: First, I cannot talk about what is in Eritrea. As to the Saho script used during the Derg’s literacy program, what was developed then is often found to be a linguistically difficult writing system for the Saho language. So, it required revision. Having reviewed it, we found it to be full of problems. Thus, we decided to take the necessary linguistic steps to enable us to develop an appropriate script for the Saho language. (Mekelle University Educator, Linguist, and TC Member Interview, October 2014)

Consequently, the TC, in consultation with the Consultative Committee, undertook various activities of corpus data collection and analysis, which led to the development of potential orthographies for the Saho language and to corpus planning decisions. Corpus Data Collection and Analysis The TC first started collecting corpus data from Saho native speakers representing Saho communities from Dowhan and three Irob Wereda Saho language community areas within the Irob Wereda: Bokneyto/ Arae, Endalgida, and Hasabaele. Thus, the corpus study did not include all Saho language varieties or dialects, since it did not include Saho varieties used by Assawirta, Tarwiae, Hazu, and Menfer language communities outside the Irob Wereda. The data collection process involved several steps. The first step was selecting nine Saho native elders. Then interviews were conducted with the elders to gather basic or most frequently used words that would include all of the phonemes of the language. The basic Saho vocabulary words were recorded on six audio cassettes. Third, the audio recorded corpus data were transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), which was later refined and re-checked against the audio data. Finally, the two linguists conducted a phonemic analysis based on the IPAtranscribed data. This included examining the phonemic, phonological, tonemic, and other linguistic features of the language, which led the team to develop graphemes and an orthography.

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

101

The TC agreed that, as a result of the corpus analysis, the Saho language could be written in either the Ge’ez script or the Latin script. These two possible writing systems would be subject to choice by the Irob people, but, according to the ILCA’s letter and minutes, the final decision would be made by the Irob Wereda Council. The TC developed two lists of reasons for choosing either the Latin or the Ge’ez script. The points, presented by the TC from claimed “neither political nor religious standpoints,” were these: The Latin script as a potential orthography for the Saho language: 1. Other clans who speak varieties of Saho, such as Aesa’Wurta, and Ter’wean in Eritrea, are using their languages for writing and reading. In so doing, they are using the Latin script. Therefore, use of the same script for all varieties of Saho would be an advantage. 2. Other Cushitic languages, which the Saho language belongs too, and especially those Saho-intimate Eastern Cushitic languages such as Afar, Afaan Oromooo, and Af-Somali, are using the Latin script. The use of the same script among these same language groups would strengthen their horizontal relationships and connections, which is vital for the development of the languages. 3. The Latin script is very conducive for teaching early grade reading skills. 4. Various studies reveal that different Cushitic languages need to be written only through the Latin script. They contend that the Latin script has the linguistic features of Cushitic languages. (Dowhan Conference Minutes, 2/13/2000 EC) Having listed the above reasons for using the Latin script, the minutes also described the TC’s claim that “Point No. 4 above does not have a linguistic foundation, since the language can equal be written in either the Latin script or the Ge’ez script.” (Dowhan Conference Minutes, 2/13/2000 EC) The Ge’ez script as a potential orthography for the Saho language: 1. In Ethiopia, the Saho language is spoken only in Tigray. Since time immemorial, the Irob people have strong political, economic, social, and psychological ties with all Ethiopians. As a result, the use of the Ethiopian script, Ge’ez, is presumed to strengthen the ties between the Irob people and Ethiopia. 2. Tigrinya is the working language of the regional state of Tigray. Thus, if the Irob people use the same script as that used for Tigrinya, it would contribute to use of Tigrinya. Besides, the use of Ge’ez for Saho in the first cycle would contribute to the use of Tigrinya in the upper grades. 3. The use of the same script could enable Tigrinya speakers to easily learn the Saho language when assigned to work in Irob community areas. 4. Based on the linguistic foundations of the phonological and phonemic features of the Saho language, with some modifications, the Ge’ez script can be employed for the Saho language. (Dohan Conference Minutes, 2/13/2000 EC)

102

4.4.1.4

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Saho Community-Based Institutions as LPP Agents

The TC, along with the Consultative Committee, carried out corpus studies and developed potential orthographies for the Saho language. Yet these were not ends in themselves. Rather, they were means to allow the Saho language be used as an MOI in primary school education. The decision required a legal body, which could organize community meetings and discussions with the concerned government decision making and implementation agencies. All of the initiatives and activities carried out so far had been the result of individuals’ will and self-commitment, which later developed into the TC and then were supported by two community-based committees, which had assumed their official duties and responsibilities under the Irob Development Association (IDA), as a legal local institution of the Irob Nationality. The members of the TC had had more influence in Saho LPP endeavors, but it was claimed that the IDA cannot be directly responsible for language issues but mainly for economic developmental matters of the Irob people. Nonetheless, the IDA’s program reveals that it was established . . . Due to its [Irob’s] small size and lack of concern as a priority, the preservation of its ethnic identity, and the fact that its continuity as an ethnic minority is now under question as it is challenged seriously by a political, harsh socio-economic, and physical environment. (IDA Establishment Document)

With such a rationale, the claim that the IDA was not directly concerned with the language issues of the Irob people, it seems that there could be other reasons, agendas, or ideological differences among the individuals initiating the language policy issues; the TC, the leadership of IDA, and the Wereda Administration and the Regional Government and its agents. This led the individuals who initiated the Saho language issues to propose establishing an organization with an official mandate to run the language and cultural issues of the Irob people. Thus, the Irob Language and Cultural Association (ILCA) was established in 2000 EC, with legal recognition from the Tigray Regional State Justice Bureau. ILCA, then, took the responsibility for addressing the Saho language policy issues. In doing so, the already established committees were put under ILCA, and the members of the coordinating committee became the board members of ILCA. ILCA started organizing official discussions and meetings in various areas of Ethiopia, such as Addis Ababa, Mekelle, Adigrat, and Dowhan, where significant number of Saho speakers live. Finally, a general conference was held in Dowhan in 2000 EC, with representatives from various Irob communities. Below is a description of the issues discussed and decisions made in the various Irob community meetings and the Irob Nationality’s general conference. Irob Community Meetings on Saho Orthography The ILCA conducted various meetings with Irob/Saho language communities in various areas of Ethiopia. The discussions focused largely on the choice of script for the Saho language. The discussions focused on the two alternative orthographies proposed by the TC: Latin script or Ge’ez script. According to the minutes of these meetings, most of the participants opted for the use of the Ge’ez script. (Appendices 8–11 describe the

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

103

Table 4.8 Irob Communities’ reasons for choosing the Ge’ez Script for the Saho Language. (Source: Minutes of Irob Community Meetings held in various cities or towns in and outside Tigray; Appendices 8–11) Reasons/Factors for Ge’ez Script Historical Sociopolitical Linguistic Pedagogical Total

IC-Addis Ababa 3 4 7

ICMekelle 1 1 1 1 4

ICAdigrat 1 1 1 3

ICDowhan 1 1 2 4

Total 6 3 6 3 18

number of participants, votes, and the specific reasons.) Table 4.8 shows the reasons that the various Irob communities claimed for using the Ge’ez script and the number of people using that reason. The reasons are categorized into four types5: sociopolitical, historical, linguistic, and pedagogical. The numbers show that the number of historical and linguistic reasons were the same, 6 each; while the number of sociopolitical and pedagogical reasons were the same, 3 each. This seems to refute positivist and modernist views on language as an abstract, and language planning as a deliberate and systematic effort to change the language structure or behavior of a given polity. It also seems to disprove the claim that corpus planning (orthography development) is a systematic and linguistic aspect of language planning, of concern only to linguists. The Irob Nationality’s Decision on Saho Orthography: The Dowhan General Conference The Dowhan Conference had involved Irob community representatives from towns and cities with significant numbers of Irob community members. The general conference was held for 2 days, 1–2/13/2000 EC It involved 164 participants, of which almost all were Saho native representatives of the Irob community. It also involved representatives of various governmental organs, such as the Irob Wereda Administration; TRSEB; and local NGOs, such as CAT, IDA, ILCA, and the Catholic Mission. The conference was chaired by the Irob Wereda Information Office Head. During the first day, the papers selected for discussion were presented. Thus, thorough discussions were held specifically on an orthography for the Saho language. The Video Archive of the Dowhan General Conference shows that the discussion on the “Orthography for the Saho Language” was the most controversial issue, and “Irob Nationality’s Language Name” was the second most controversial. During the conference, a point raised by one of the paper presenters led to a very hot and conflicting discussion.

5

In categorizing the reasons into four, it is difficult to make clear-cut boundaries. What is categorized as historical by someone can be categorized as social or political by someone else, though it seems less likely to be categorized as linguistic or pedagogical.

104

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Having presented the paper on the issue, the presenter added his own remark, claiming that the choice of the Ge’ez script for the Saho language seems to have a non-linguistic agenda, with political, historical, and religious factors affecting the decisions. With this issue presented, it was immediately counter argued by the Irob Wereda Information Office, who was chairing the meeting. The chairperson argued that such views are intentionally reflected in order to destruct the main aim of the conference. With such conflicting ideas the conference was abruptly put to an end, and was made to continue the next day. (Informal discussions with the then ILCA’s chairperson along with other Saho native educators, November 2013; TC members, June 2014; in-depth interviews with an RSEB Representative to the Dowhan Conference and TC Members, October 2014)

The next day, the issue that had provoked emotion among the participants was addressed by a linguist who was a member of the TC, so that “participants would choose without being confused.” One among us (the TC), who presented one of the selected conference papers, expressed his own personal opinion that religious and political institutions are making impositions (i.e., for the use of the Ge’ez script), which led to opposition from the participants and then to turmoil. Thus, participants were afraid that such feelings would not lead us forward to a smooth ending. A request was made that the case be presented by a politically and religious independent individual. The next day, I presented the case, which finally led to the final decision. This leads me to conclude that the decision was inclusive (miek’ul neyiru), though there could be covert factors which were not visible during the conference’s decision making process. (TC Member Interview, October 2014)

The next day’s discussion commenced with the TC’s presentation of the reasons for using the Ge’ez or the Latin script for the Saho language, which is claimed to have led the majority of the conference participants to vote for the Ge’ez script as an appropriate writing system for Saho.

4.4.2

Regional Micro, Meso, and Macro Layers of LPP

This section discusses the interplay and tensions between the local and regional policy agencies’ decisions and addresses regional layers of LPP at micro, meso and macro levels as interacting layers. The main objective of the Dowhan Conference was to conduct community-based discussions on the alternative orthographies developed for the Saho language and make an orthographic choice, so that the language could be used in education or as an MOI. In doing so, the Saho LPP processes involved the following activities: 1. The Irob Nationalities’ decision on the Saho orthography 2. The ILCA’s official communication with the Irob Wereda Council and TRSEB at the Dowhan Conference, the Irob Nationality’s decision, and further LPP activities 3. The Irob Wereda Council’s Decision and official communication with macro agencies 4. The Tigray National Regional State Council’s decision on the Regional State’s LPP

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

105

5. The RSEB’s decision on and implementation of the Saho LPP Below is a description of the key discourses (written and spoken) pertaining to the key contextual LPP activities listed. This is important, because an examination of the key language policy decisions and statements at the Dowhan Conference (Appendix 12), the ILCA’s letter (Appendix 4), and Irob Wereda Council’s Letter (Appendix 4) and their effects and implications can help to illuminate explicit and implicit agencies, factors, and mechanisms underpinning the Saho LPP process. It can also unravel the interplay and tensions among the micro-level policy agents (the language community), meso-level agents (the Wereda Council), and macro-level policy adoption, change, and implementation (by the concerned Regional Government Policy agencies, including the TRSEB).

4.4.3

Localized LPP Processes

This section discusses the Irob Community’s Saho LPP decisions as a localized process, and looks at home this involves appropriation by a local institution and local government agency. The ILCA as a Local-Institution Policy Agent Following the Irob Werda Council’s decision and letter informing the approval of the Irob community’s decision, the ILCA sent a letter (dated 16/03/2001 EC) to the TRSEB. The letter stated the Irob Wereda Council’s approval of the Irob people’s decision and requested that the TRSEB (as a responsible government agent for implementing the policy decision) use the Saho language as an MOI for primary school education for the Saho community children. The letter stated: Subject: Implementation of Mother Tongue Education to the Irob Nationality’s Children. LPP Issues: 1. Members of the Irob Wereda Council have unanimously decided on the use of the Ge’ez script for the Irob language (Saho). 2. In order to further strengthen the already started efforts of preserving the Saho language, developing the curriculum would enable Irob Nationality children to learn through their mother tongue. 3. To this end, we politely request your office to facilitate the assignment of Saho native educated individuals to the TRSEB! (ILCA Letter to the TRSEB) The ILCA letter implies that the ILCA, as a local institution, was not mandated to go beyond such LPP efforts and was not in a position to approve and further implement the community’s decisions. Thus, having stated that the community’s orthography decision was approved by the concerned or mandated government agency, IWC, the ILCA, in Statement 2 above, implies that the LPP activities conducted so far could ultimately lead to the preservation of the Saho language, if the Irob children could be educated through their mother tongue, Saho. The

106

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

statement implies that the ILCA’s acquisition planning involves requesting implementation by the macro-regional government agency TRSEB (Statement 3). The IWC as a Local Government Policy Agent Following the Dowhan Conference, the ILCA sent the conference minutes to the Irob Wereda Council (IWC) on 30/2/2001 EC. The 16-page document, which compiled minutes of the various Irob community meetings and the Dowhan conference, stated that the final decisions of those reached at the Dowhan conference are subject to the Wereda Council’s final approval. Having received the conference minutes from the ILCA, the Irob Wereda Council discussed and passed a decision approving the Irob people’s choice of the use of the Ge’ez script for the Saho language and sent a letter (dated 12/03/2001 EC) stating this approval and requesting that all concerned governmental and non-governmental agents take specific actions. Addressed to: The President of the Tigray Regional State; Bureau of Tigray Regional State’s Council; Tigray Regional TRSEB. . . ., and ILCA. Subject: Irob Wereda Council’s decision on the use of the Ge’ez script for the Saho language. LPP issues stated by the letter: 1. The Irob Wereda Council has unanimously decided on the use of the Ge’ez script for the Irob language (Saho). 2. In order to continue the already started studies on the Saho language and to enable children to have mother tongue education, the Wereda Council has decided that governmental and non-governmental organizations need to exert all efforts in this regard. 3. Finally, the Irob Wereda Council, having mentioned the key contributions of the ongoing Saho language efforts to the development of the Irob nationality, has officially called concerned governmental and non-governmental agencies to make necessary preparations and efforts to carry out the following plans, and others, to support the program: • Training teachers who can teach through the mother tongue • Developing Saho language textbooks and supplementary materials • Developing a Saho language grammar and dictionary (Irob Wereda Council Letter) Statement 3 of the letter reveals the Wereda Council’s language policy and planning activities that government and non-governmental bodies should be involved in. The first two bulleted actions explicitly reveal that the IWC is making a language policy decision for the use of the Saho language both as an MOI (Bullet 1, . . . teachers who could teach through the mother tongue) and as a school subject (Bullet 2, . . . Saho language textbooks and . . .). Bullet 3 argues for further development of the Saho language. Examining the IWC’s decisions on the Saho language from Hornberger’s (2006) Integrative Framework on LPP Goals, which makes distinctions among status planning, corpus planning, and acquisition planning, we could infer the following.

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

107

First, the IWC’s approval of the Irob community’s decision to use Ge’ez as a writing system for the Saho language has led the IWC to take part in the Saho corpus planning process through passing a policy decision based on the community’s corpus planning decision. Second, the fact that the Irob community has developed and approved a writing system for the Saho language, which led the IWC to request macro-level preparations (by regional policy agents) for using the Saho language as an MOI and as a school subject, implies the IWC’s acquisition planning. Last, the IWC’s request for further activities, including developing supplementary materials and a Saho language grammar and dictionary, implies the IWC’s cultivation planning which, according to the integrative framework, deals with the language development efforts for enabling a language to have a standard form and to be used as a language of science and technology. In sum, the IWC’s letter went beyond approving a writing system for the Saho language. It also dealt with decisions about uses of the language in education and as a language of science and technology. The IWC’s request that the language be used as an MOI and a school subject seems to have emanated first from the Irob community’s decision regarding this, second from the ILCA and its agents’ interest, and third from the IWC and its agents’ interest. The IWC’s letter implies that though the IWC is mandated to approve and thus pass decisions on the community’s orthography, it is not mandated to implement or make interventions regarding the use of Saho use as an MOI. The letter rather seems to reveal that the mandate for adopting and implementing the Saho language decisions lies with the macro-level regional government agencies, primarily the Regional Council, which could lead to the interplay and tensions among micro and macro-level policy agencies, ideologies, and mechanisms. The Appropriation of Micro-Level LPP Decisions by Macro-Level Agencies As described above, individuals’ (e.g., Saho native educators, Aba Abraham) concern about the educational and sociolinguistic implications of Tigrinyamedium primary school education first led the Irob community, along with its local institutions (e.g., IDA and ILCA), to carry out a study to develop an orthography of the Saho language. This further led the Irob Wereda Government Agencies (e.g., the Irob Wereda Administration, IW Communication Office), the Regional Government Agency (TRSEB), and non-governmental organizations (e.g., CAT, the Adigrat Catholic Church) to be involved in the Irob Nationality’s Dowhan General Conference, conducted to have final discussions and decisions on the Saho language. Thus, the Irob nationality’s Saho LPP decisions made in the General Conference led to the IWC’s and the ILCA’s corpus planning, acquisition planning, and cultivation planning. Localized Saho LPP as Appropriated by the Tigray National Regional State Council According to the TRSEB Planning Head, who took part in the Tigray National Regional State Council’s discussion dealing with the LPP issue raised by the Irob Nationality, the council first approved the rights of the Irob and Kunama nationalities to use their languages in education. Thus, a letter which addressed

108

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

additional budget issues to facilitate Saho language use in education was sent to the TRSEB (Interview, October 2014). Localized Saho LPP as Appropriated by the TRSEB Following the Regional Council’s decision, the TRSEB recruited a Saho native educator, who was responsible for coordinating and developing a Saho language subject curriculum or textbook. Thus, as a result of the TRSEB having developed a grade 1 Saho language textbook and provided training to Saho language teachers in 2001, teaching of the Saho language as a subject commenced in 2002 for grade 1 and is now used as a primary school subject through grade 6. When asked why the TRSEB approved use of the Saho language as a subject when the Irob Nationality’s request was to use the language as an MOI, the TRSEB Curriculum Head, who took part in the Dowhan Conference, replied that it happened because the language is not well enough developed to serve as an MOI and most of the primary school teachers in the Irob Wereda are Tigrinya native speakers, since teachers from the Irob nationality are few in number. Considering these two factors for not implementing Saho as an MOI, it can be implied that the first deals with the status of the language and the second deals with the human capacity of the Irob Nationality.

4.4.4

Micro and Macro Factors for Partial Implementation of the Irob Community’s Policy

The following factors and mechanisms influenced the partial implementation of the Irob community’s policy regarding the use of the Saho language in instruction. Requests to Use Saho as an MOI Despite the facts that (1) the Irob community developed a writing system for the Saho language so that it could be used as an MOI, which could alleviate the sociolinguistic and educational effects of learning through a non-mother tongue, and (2) the IWC and ILCA requested that the regional government use the language as an MOI, its appropriation by the regional policy agents was limited to teaching Saho only as a subject. This seems to have been influenced by various micro- and macro-level factors and mechanisms. The 2002 FDRE’s political program stated that a nationality’s language can serve as an MOI if the nationality has both the interest and the capacity to use its language for that purpose. With such an official policy statement, I attempted to examine the Irob nationality’s interest and capacity and the status of the Saho language to be used as an MOI, and the micro-and macro-level policy factors and mechanisms that are claimed to have hindered this use of the language The Saho Nationality’s Interest, Capacity, and Language Status I asked my Saho nationality interviewees whether the use of Tigrinya as an MOI with Sahospeaking children resulted from the lack of the Irob peoples’ interest in and capacity to use the Saho language in this way.

4.4 Implications of Tigrinya as an Official Language and MOI for the Irob. . .

109

Interest Dealing with the Irob peoples’ language attitudes and language practices, the CAT survey reported that they have a very positive attitude toward their language, and Saho is often the language spoken outside classroom contexts. Research participants expressed different views, summarized here. Having taken the working language of the region, the use of Saho as an MOI, instead of Tigrinya, would result in the Saho language community having limited mobility and access to jobs in different governmental and non-governmental organizations outside Irob Wereda. (Saho Native Research Participants, Multiple Interviews) Unless there are other unnatural factors, no one lacks interest in using their language for all domains of life. Who wants to defend oneself in a court in a non-mother tongue language? Who wants to learn through another language? (Saho Native Research Participants, Multiple Interviews) The Irob people have always been consistent in identifying themselves as Irob ethnic identity, with Saho linguistic identity and also being loyal to their Tigrayan and Ethiopian identities. (Saho Native Research Participants, Multiple Interviews) The CAT survey further pointed out that in classroom situations, Saho native teachers and students find expressing themselves in Tigrinya difficult, and they are often observed code switching to the Saho language. Capacity Considering the Irob people’s capacity or resources to be able to use Saho as an MOI in primary school education, interviewees mentioned that the Irob people are relatively more educated individuals, with better levels of education, than those of other nationalities. They often claimed that the Catholic Church had played a crucial role in introducing education to the Irob people (Multiple Interviews with Saho Native Educators). Similarly, the Irob Development Association (IDA) stated that the “Irob minority are . . . the first Catholic Christians in East Africa,” and “the elementary school in Alitena since 1876 has been one of the very first academic centers in Ethiopia.” In line with these statements, the Amharic newspaper, Addis Admas (Yekatit/Feb. 26, 2003, Ethiopian Calendar, EC, p. 9) stated: In the 2001 Ethiopian second International Education Exhibition, the Department of Education for the Adigrat Catholic Church presented photographic and documentary evidence showing that modern education in Ethiopia was introduced in 1837 EC (1844/5). A school named Tsinsetelemariam School was opened around Adigrat, specifically called Gola.

On the other hand, the TRSEB official claimed that while interest in using Saho as an MOI did exist, the human capacity of the Irob people and the status of the language do not permit us to do so. He stated that “most of the teachers in the Irob Wereda are Tigrinya native speakers,” and thus, “making the Saho language a language of instruction in such a context is difficult” (RSEB Official, Interview, October 2014). Yet, the results of the structured interviews with the teachers revealed that out of the 20 teachers interviewed, 15 were native Saho speakers with a Diploma and above qualifications. This could lead us to claim that the Irob nationality, at least as evidenced in the two schools, has the required human resources to implement the Saho language as an MOI.

110

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

Saho Language Status One of the Saho native educators claimed that Saho could have been used as an MOI, since “the Saho language was one of the languages employed for the literacy campaign of the Derg’s time, which gave the language its own writing system and developed some literacy materials in the language (Saho Native Educator, Interview, June 2014). Another informant claimed that “its current development as a language of primary education in Eritrea could have been used as beginning resources at least to start teaching the language” (Saho Native Research Participant, Interview, June 2014). The research participants have expressed that, given the Irob Wereda’s or People’s human resource potential, using Saho as an MOI could be problematic, since “Tigrinya as an MOI has already been in place in pre-1991” (Saho Native Educator, Interview, September 2014). Lack of Macro-Level Planning or Interventions A Saho language activist said that “had the regional government been interested or committed, the Saho language could have been used as an MOI at least in the early grades of primary school education. But so far nothing has been made of the language” (Research Participant, Interview, May 2014). Another interviewee said that it would have been possible if the following conditions were fulfilled: 1. Saho-educated human resources were drawn from the other areas of the region and country 2. Teacher education colleges were made to admit more Saho native candidates, possibly through affirmative action (Saho Native Participant Interview, May, 2014) However, a Tigrinya native educator said that “anyone who intends to get teacher training is required to score a C or above in Tigrinya,” which could probably be difficult for Saho native speakers (Educator, Questionnaire, October 2013). This person also said that of all the school subjects, Saho students often say that they find Tigrinya to be the most difficult (Mekelle University Educator and Linguist, Interview, May 2014). The TRSEB Saho language curriculum coordinator and developer claimed that although a study on how to provide further training for Saho subject teachers has been conducted, so far no attempt has been made to plan its use as an MOI and to provide formal or institutional teacher training for doing so (TRSEB-Saho Language Curriculum Coordinator and Developer, Interview, September 2014).

4.4.5

Mismatch Between the Irob Community’s Request and Macro-Level Policy Appropriation

As described above, the Irob Nationality’s Saho Language Policy Conference centered on discussions and decisions related to the use of the Latin or Ge’ez scripts for the Saho language (Dowhan Conference Minutes and Multiple Interviews).

4.5 Proclamations on Regional Minority Language Use

111

However, developing an orthography was not an end in itself but rather a means and a prerequisite for using the Saho language in education. Concurring with this claim, the TRSEB official who took part in the conference stated, The decision made in the Dowhan conference was to start using the Saho language as a subject and later, when it gets well developed, it can serve as an MOI. (TRSEB Official, Interview, September 2014)

However, when asked if the conference dealt with other language policy issues, such as the use of Saho in education, my informants expressed mixed views. One stated: Such a decision was left to the government. . . .Yet, we started developing an orthography with the objective of using the language as a language of instruction. The question from the people and from the Wereda, which you can refer to in the letter, stated that since we have developed an orthography (fidel), we need to get education through our language. Doing so would lead a child to have better education, which the government supports. (Saho Native Educator, TC Member Interview, October 2014)

The same informant mentioned that: “With the belief that it would be difficult to use Saho as an MOI, there was general agreement and interest among all participants, the people and the government, to start first as a subject, at least for a few years, then later as an MOI. . . . Until the language develops, and until things are arranged, . . . it was found important to begin first as a subject and later, being developed, Saho can be used as a language of instruction of primary education. (Saho Native Educator, TC Member Interview, October 2014)

Another Saho native educator, who took a key role in the Saho LPP processes, pointed out: It is not clear why or through what policy decision or plan the Irob community’s request to use Saho as an MOI was limited by the TRSEB to the teaching of Saho as a subject, is not up to the community’s policy objectives and request and the regional council’s policy decision. (Saho Native Educator, TC Member Interview, October 2014)

4.5

Proclamations on Regional Minority Language Use

The 2005 and the 2006 Tigray Regional State’s Language Proclamations on Regional Minority Language Use in Education and Other Domains are discussed in this section. The CAT survey was intended to have language policy implications for the thendrafted document on establishing the Tigray Language Academy. The survey report stated that one significant implication of the study was “to show possible programs or directives of the Tigray Language Academy, whose establishment is expected to be officially declared soon” (Unpublished Survey Study Report, 2000 EC, p. 6). With this goal, the report summarized the following findings in the executive summary:

112

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

The survey found out that the regional state constitutes many nationalities besides the officially recognized Irob and Kunama Nationalities. Yet, all nationalities except the Tigray Nationality are forced to get education through Tigrinya, which is not their mother tongue. Viewing this from Linguistic, Pedagogical, and Psychological Conceptions and from Democratic and Human Rights Perspectives, it is found to be a problem. Emanating from such problems, the study specifically found the following results: problems of understanding academic concepts and thus low educational achievement; students dropping out and repeating grades; subtractive language shift; linguistic, cultural, and identity impositions; and extinction of folklore.” (Unpublished Survey Study Report, 2000 EC, p. 3)

As described above, the CAT survey on Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray with students of other nationalities sought to provide input to the then work-in-progress document for establishing the Tigray Language Academy. Thus, I asked interviewees whether the findings of the survey had been used as input for shaping or reshaping the programs, objectives, and agendas of the language academy. One member of the survey team and of one of the committees for establishing the Tigray Language Academy described the case as follows: Having submitted the report, I know nothing about whether the findings have contributed to the work project proposal. What I know is that the survey study has been made to be a confidential document. (MU Educator, Interview-October, 2014)

From this interviewee, I learned that the Tigray Regional State’s Council had officially approved two language proclamations -- Proclamation on the Establishment of a Tigray Languages Academy, and Proclamation on Tigray Language Use for Various Functions/Domains, respectively numbered 249/2006 EC and 86/2007 EC. These two proclamations were crucial, for they could unravel the official response of the regional government on minority language use in education, about which the Irob people had taken such initiatives, as well as other stakeholders – individuals (researchers, policy makers, etc.), local institutions (IDA, ILCA), and government bodies (such as the Irob Wereda Council). An examination of the two proclamations, in light of proclamations on language spaces for the regional minority languages/nationalities vis-à-vis language spaces for the regional majority language/nationality, could help us unravel the explicit and implicit language policy and ideological manifestations or agendas of the proclamations. In relation to the explicit manifestations of the proclamations, Proclamation 249/2006 explicitly states that the objectives of the proclamation are to: effectively put the Constitutional language rights into practice; objectively work to correct the existing less standard or unplanned use of languages in Tigray; and avoid linguistic and other negative influences on the Tigray languages (Article 4). Proclamation 86/2007 states that the objectives of the proclamation on establishing the Tigray Language Academy are to develop, preserve, and create standard ways of using the Tigray languages and literatures (Article 6). The proclamation on use of the Tigray languages explicitly states what and how to use the languages in naming governmental and private organizations, and as street languages or languages of public advertisements. Article 6 of the proclamation to

4.6 Conclusion

113

regulate the Tigray languages explicitly states the following (Proclamation 86// 2007). Article 6(3–1): Names of organizations in Tigray, except in the Irob and Kunama areas, must be written first in Tigrinya, which can be followed by any other language the organization wants to use. Article 6(3–2): Names of organizations in Irob and Kunama areas must use the respective area’s language, which can be followed by any other language the organization wants to use. Article 6(4): Different types of information to be posted in streets and service giving organizations need to be written first in Tigray languages. Furthermore, the proclamation states that the key organ for implementing it is the Tigray Tourism and Culture Agency, while the Tigray Trade and Industry Bureau and other government organs serve as collaborating agents.

4.6

Conclusion

The detailed examination of the sociolinguistic and demographic context here and the experience and interpretation of the context by the Irob Nationality’s local association underscores the importance of scale and perspective. In comparison with other parts of the world, little contemporary literature exists about language policy developments in Ethiopia in general and in regional and sub-regional areas in particular. This chapter has shown how language policy articulation between nation, state and locality is immensely complex not just because of administration and management, but also because of local linguistic ecological conditions impact deeply on how regulations, policies and their implementation are interpreted. What appears to be clear at a macro level, oriented towards reducting inequity and recognising identity, is crude and blunt when seen from micro perspectives. When policy is perceived to be a threat to local sociolinguistic identity, such as the fact that only Tigrinya was the medium of primary education and a working language of all official domains of the regional state, some elites from the Irob nationality became concerned about the survival of Saho, and Irob ethno-linguistic and cultural identity. This examination of language attitudes/ideologies, language policy, and language practices in the Irob schools and community, in two Irob Wereda primary schools, and in an urban Irob community was conducted to open a window into how policy is experienced. The value of this exercise is clear from the radical shift in interpretaoin of overall policy that is revealed.

114

4 Ideology, Policy, and Practice of Language in Irob Wereda

References6 Hornberger, N. H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 273–289). Oxford: Blackwell. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000. Linguistic genocide in education – or worldwide diversity and human rights? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spolsky B. 2004. Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6

The convention for citation of Ethiopian authors is followed here for Ethiopian names, which is an individual’s personal name followed by a separate patronym (the given or first name of a person’s father) followed in some cases by an avonymic, or an earlier male ancestor. These are not separated by a comma or other punctuation. Unless an indivudal has modified his or her name to prefer initials for some components, all the relevant names are used in citation and referencing.

Chapter 5

Research Implications and Policy Lessons

5.1

Introduction

The main argument of this study is that a polity’s language policy and planning (LPP) focus, as stated officially or stipulated in official documents (in the Ethiopian case, in the federal and regional state Constitutions, political programs, policy documents, and proclamations) are not always mechanisms that govern actual or real language policy, as manifested in the language practices on the ground. The study, therefore, raises this question: In situations where there exists a gap between the officially proclaimed language policy and the language practices on the ground, which of these should be claimed as the “Real Language Policy” of the polity?

In situations where a polity does not have an official written LPP, it is not sound to imply that the country does not have a language policy. Rather, it is critical to examine the underlying factors or constructs of a “No-Policy Policy,” which can result in one of two different interpretations, found in different legal traditions. • What is not explicitly forbidden is permitted! or • What is not explicitly permitted is forbidden! This chapter summarizes the findings of the study and its theoretical and empirical implications and then discusses these findings in light of Contemporary or Critical LPP theories, concepts, and research findings. It concludes that LPP is sufficiently evolved to illuminate important social, political, and cultural developments in a country as diverse as Ethiopia and that systematic study of processes of formulation of LPP can inform many areas of potential social improvement.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4_5

115

116

5.2 5.2.1

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

Study Findings Empirical and Ideological Factors in LPP

This study reveals that the language policy of the polity can be attributed to a number of empirical and ideological factors. For instance, the imperial monolingual LPP (as stipulated in the 1955 Constitution) can be claimed to have been undergirded by the then-presumed practical objectives of language planning (positivist orientation of language planning as an objective and systematic tool to solving presumed language problems). Yet, language planning during the imperial period was ideologically motivated, to perpetuate the “One Nation, One Language” political ideology, as depicted in the memo of then-Minister of Pen. Moreover, taking Post-1974 Ethiopian political contexts as cases in point, we can claim that the Derg and federal Ethiopia’s multilingual LPP can be attributed to empirical or practical factors, such as resolving language-based problems to address the then politically burning question of nationalities. Addressing this question implied the linguistic rights and equality of all nationalities, which is underpinned by an ideological factor. In the decentralized regional system of Ethiopia, the Tigray language policy has also been underpinned by ideological and empirical factors. For instance, the Tigray liberation and nationalist movement has taken language, and language use in education, as the most crucial emblem or political or ideological tool to galvanize a nationalist movement in Tigray, thus making language an ideological tool for achieving the political aims of the struggle. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Tigrinya-based resistance policies not only had ideological implications. They also had multiple empirical implications: Educational Implications, in that they provided mother tongue education to the masses, especially to the adult members of the TPLF; and Linguistic Implications, in that they contributed to revitalizing the status of the Tigrinya language. Tigrinya was used for all domains of the revolutionary movement. In developing the Tigrinya language as a language of science and technology, many science and technology terms were adopted from or translated into Tigrinya. Similarly, post-1991 Ethiopia has employed multilingual policies with both empirical and ideological motives. On the one hand, a multilingual policy has served an empirical purpose, since it brought mother tongue education as a right of all nationalities with pedagogical implications – educational equity and quality for all. On the other hand, first the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE 1991–1995) and then the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE 1995) have employed language as a political or ideological tool to perpetuate a “Unity with Diversity” nation building ideology, which has primarily addressed the long-time problem of diverse nations and nationalities.

5.2 Study Findings

5.2.2

117

Explicit and Implicit Manifestations of LPP

The empirical and contextual findings of this study reveal that there exist a close interplay and tensions between language policy, language ideology, and the ideology of the polity. The polity’s ideology shapes its language ideology and language policy. For instance, Imperial Ethiopia’s political nation-building ideology, “One Nation, One Language,” underpinned the imperial period’s language ideology and language policy – monolingual, Amharic only throughout the country, regardless of the country’s ethnolinguistic diversity. This reveals that an official or explicit language policy of a polity can be a manifestation of the ideology of the polity. Yet, the official language policy and explicit ideology of the polity may not be underpinned by an implicit language policy or ideology. In other words, the official language policy could be an overt manifestation of the ideology of the country, though it could have covert manifestations. For instance, the Derg officially claimed a Marxist-Leninist political ideology, probably as a result of the historical and contextual influences from the Ethiopian Student Movement or due to the international or African countries’ political environment. Consequently, the Derg explicitly proclaimed the linguistic rights of all nationalities of Ethiopia, which implied a multilingual policy. Yet, in practice, this policy was manifested as a monolingual one, which resulted in the Derg having conflicting language policies. While the de jure policy of the Derg was a multilingual one, which was an explicit manifestation of its explicit political or language ideology, the de facto policy of the Derg was a monolingual one, which was an implicit manifestation of its covert political and language ideology and centralized policy agents’ covert agendas. The FDRE’s explicit language policy and political and language ideology are found to be in contradiction to the real language policies on the ground, in the regional states, which can be claimed to have been underpinned by implicit language policies with covert political ideologies and thus, covert language ideologies of the policy agents. The Tigray regional state, being mandated by the FDRE’s Constitution, has proclaimed the linguistic rights of all nationalities in the regional state, which implies an explicit multilingual policy in a federated and decentralized political system. Yet in practice, the region has implemented a de facto monolingual policy. While the de jure language policy is an explicit manifestation of its explicit political and language ideology, the de facto language policy is an implicit manifestation of the covert political and language ideology and the regional agents’ covert agendas.

5.2.3

Approaches/Methods of LPP Making

The gap between the official language policy (de jure policy) and the language policy in practice (de facto policy) reveals the ideological underpinnings of both types of policies. The comparative analysis of the de jure language policies of

118

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

Imperial Ethiopia and Socialist Ethiopia illustrates that the two systems have entirely contradictory policies. While Imperial Ethiopia proclaimed a de jure monolingual language policy – Only Amharic – Socialist Ethiopia officially proclaimed a de jure multilingual language policy – the right to use of nationalities’ languages. Yet, despite the differences between the de jure language policies of the two sociopolitical and historical systems, the de facto manifestations, the actual implementation and practices of the two language policies, illustrates that both systems implemented a hegemonic policy – Only Amharic. Despite the textually manifested differences between the two systems, both had similar language policy goals and ideologies (overt or covert) for achieving and maintaining the unity of the multilingual country, in which only top policy agents were positioned to make LPP decisions. Likewise, a comparison of the de jure language policies of Socialist Ethiopia and Federal Ethiopia shows that these two systems also had similar language policies. Both had a de jure multilingual policy, as manifested in their official government documents, including political programs and the Constitution. Yet, an examination of the policies, as practiced in the two different sociopolitical contexts, shows that the de facto policies of the two systems are similar: a monolingual policy in centralized Ethiopia (Only Amharic) and the decentralized Tigray regional state (Only Tigrinya). A top-down policy approach was taken in both contexts, which did not provide any decision making power to all language speakers. Language policy at multiple levels has had different explicit and implicit manifestations with explicit and implicit goals, discourses, mechanisms, and agents. This led to the interplay and tensions among the multiple policy layers. In other words, the post-1991 multilingual policy had multilayered manifestations, with a Macro-Policy Layer (Federal level), Meso-Policy Layer (Regional level), and Micro-Policy Layer (Wereda level and below). For instance, the textual analysis of the Constitutions and policy documents of the Federal and the Tigray regional states shows that both policy layers officially proclaim a multilingual policy, which shows the interplay between the two layers (Macro and Meso). Yet, this interplay does not necessarily guarantee multilingual language practices on the ground (e.g., language use in schools). Examination of the officially proclaimed regional multilingual policy, as practiced or implemented in the Tigray regional state, shows that there seems to be a residual resistance to the implementation of the proclaimed multilingual policy. Such resistance could emanate from meso-policy layer agents (e.g., from regional government or from other government policy agencies, such as the Tigray Regional State Education Bureau [TRSEB]) or from micro-policy layer agents (e.g., from institutions or individuals, such as political activists or teachers). Having such contextual features of the LPP process, it is sound to argue that they reflect the dominant regional language group’s covert interests or goals to perpetuate or maintain the dominant language policy, which can be underpinned by the dominant group’s state-building ideology, in this case, “One-Region One Language.” Such divergences among language policy as proclaimed and language policy as practiced across multiple policy layers leads us to assert that LPP is a

5.2 Study Findings

119

contextual and multilayered process with dynamic interplays and tensions, undergirded by multiple goals and ideologies.

5.2.4

Contextual Agents of LPP Processes

Examining the sociopolitical and historical contexts and the ideological foundations of pre-and post-1991 Ethiopia’s language policy, this study found their basis to be in the 1960 Ethiopian student movement, which was ideologically rooted in socialism. It can be argued that the leftist political organizations – Me’ison, TPLF, and EPRP – which had their genesis on the fringes of the student movement have had key roles in shaping the ideologies and language policies. It can also be claimed that Me’ison made a significant contribution to shaping the Derg’s language policy and ideology (pre-1991). In examining matters of agency in the emergence and development of mother tongue education in Ethiopia, and particularly in the regional state of Tigray, the study found that the TPLF played a key role as an institutional micro-level policy agent. The TPLF, an outgrowth of the student movement, and particularly of the TUSA and TNO, has been the sole policy agent in shaping the Tigrinya-based resistance language policy and ideology of pre-1991 Tigray. The Derg’s hegemonic policies led to the emergence of individual and institutional resistance (e.g., by the TPLF), which can be considered a bottom-up policy approach. In examining the individual agents within the TPLF, it was found that key members of TUSA, who later became the leaders of the Tigray nationalist movements such as TPLF and TLF, had key roles in the emergence of the Tigrinya-based micro-level resistance and later in the development of the macro- or federal-level multilingual policies in post-1991. This implies that the micro-level policies (of the TPLF), which gave rise to the implementation of Tigrinya MOI in the Hara-Merets of Tigray, along with other similar resistance language policy initiatives or interests and developments by some nationalist movements (such as by OLF, Sidama), have ultimately shaped the macro-level policies of the TGE and FDRE. Similarly, the TPLF, claimed as the dominant force of post-1991 politics, along with the then EPRP and the present APDM, and OPDM (thus the EPRDF) has largely shaped first the TGE’s and later the FDRE’s ideology and language policy. This shows, on the one hand, the interplay between the Micro-Policy Layers (the nationalist movements’ LPP) and the Macro-Policy Layers (the TGE and FDREs’ LPP). On the other hand, this illustrates a bottom-up policy making approach. Consequently, language and so LPP, having served as political or ideological mobilization tools of the nationalist movement in Ethiopia, particularly that of TPLF, have been the center of the TPLF-led armed struggle, which further has greatly impacted the post-1991 language policy and language ideology of the federal government and that of the regional state of Tigray. Furthermore, dealing with the agency matters in the creation and appropriation of the Saho LPP processes, the study revealed that individuals from Irob nationality,

120

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

and later Irob elites, were preoccupied with a whole gamut of concerns pertaining to the only Tigrinya regional de facto policy’s implications to the Irob nationality’s language and identity and particularly its impact on the Irob children’s education. Thus, concerned about the implications of non-mother tongue primary school education for the children of the Irob nationality, the individuals initiated a Saho LPP process. In consultation with a concerned Catholic Priest from the Irob community, they established a technical committee to develop an orthography for the Saho language. The process that emerged out of this concern has involved various local/Wereda and regional policy agents, which have had key roles in shaping and appropriating the Irob community-based Saho decisions. This implies that LPP is not just a top-down and bottom-up policy approach. Rather, it is a dynamic process with multiple layers and involves not only interplay but also tensions among multiple explicit and implicit policy layers and agents. For instance, the intention of developing an orthography for the Saho language emerged out of the interest of the language community in using the Saho language as an MOI in primary education rather than using Tigrinya as an MOI with nonTigrinya-speaking children. This led the Irob community local institution, ILCA (Micro policy layer and agent), and the Irob Wereda Council (Meso policy layers and agents) to officially request that the Regional state (Regional Macro policy layer and agent) implement Saho-based mother tongue education with Irob children. Nonetheless, despite the official approval by the regional council of the request, its appropriation by the TRSEB (an organ responsible for educational matters of the regional state) has been limited to the teaching of Saho as a school subject while continuing to use Tigrinya as an MOI. The TRSEB claims that the Saho language, being less developed, requires some time before it can be used as an MOI. Thus, it will be taught as a subject until there is an opportunity for its further development. Similarly, the Irob Wereda Council’s Speaker of the House claims that before the teaching of Saho as a subject, the status of the Saho language was quite at risk, in that the Irob people felt ashamed or frightened to use the language to communicate with each other.

5.3

LPP as a Dynamic, Contextual Process

LPP studies, especially being oriented toward a positivist theory, argue that LPP is a linear process involving and moving from: fact-finding, formulation, implementation, and evaluation/revision. Consequently, most, if not all, LPP studies in Ethiopia examined LPP as a linear process. For instance, McNab’s (1988) dissertation, which is often claimed as an important LPP study in Ethiopia, examined Socialist Ethiopia’s LPP formulation and implementation. More recently, Bekale Seyoum’s (2012) dissertation evaluated LPP as formulated and implemented across the various contexts of Ethiopia. This study, however, has found that LPP is not necessarily a linear process, moving from policy formulation to policy implementation and finally to policy

5.3 LPP as a Dynamic, Contextual Process

121

evaluation and revision, in a top-down policy making approach. For instance, the fact that the Derg followed a top-down policy approach did not fit the language ideologies of the Tigray people, or at least of the Tigrayan elites. This led the Tigray elites to follow a bottom-up policy approach in developing the TPLF resistance in pre-1991 Ethiopia, which in post-1991 Ethiopia has shaped the FDRE’s Constitution. In other words, the TPLF, along with its coalition forces, assumed that political power has key policy roles in shaping the TGE/FDRE’s LPP in post-1991 Ethiopia. This resulted in micro-level resistance-based LPP implementation, bottom-up policy, in shaping the macro-level federal official LPP formulation.

5.3.1

The LPP Process Is Not Just a Professional Occupation

Given that LPP is not necessarily a top-down policy approach, micro agents without expertise or knowledge can make language policies. In other words, language policies are not just mandated by top policy agents or professional linguists. The TPLF-based mother tongue education, which required refining the Ethiopic script to Tigrinya linguistic features, was not conducted by professional linguists but rather by Tigrayan elites, who were the key founders and leaders of the nationalist movement, TPLF. Similarly, the Saho language planning case illustrates that corpus planning is not only the concern of linguists and language policy professionals. The Irob community had key roles in making decisions about corpus planning matters related to the Saho language. Moreover, the use of Saho as a MOI by Saho-speaking teachers and students in their day-to-day educational life reveals that teachers and students can serve as language policy agents. This confirms that when they are not comfortable using the declared MOI, it is highly likely that they will struggle with the de jure LPP and use the language that they feel more comfortable with.

5.3.2

Language Policy and Ideology

A nuanced understanding of language policy and practices needs to take stock of the broader political and ideological contexts in which they are embedded. Shohamy (2006) argues that “language policy falls in the midst of . . . battles between ideology and practice” (p. xv). This study found that language policy is often in conflict not only with language practices but also with the official state ideology. The imperial politics of centralization and homogenization in nation building practiced and perpetuated a monolingual language policy, which implies the congruence of the state’s language policy and its ideology. Yet, despite the Derg’s socialist ideological orientation to equal rights for all nationalities, the Derg’s policies and practices continued its predecessor’s monolingual nation building ideology. Later, federal Ethiopia and the Tigray regional state’s official multilingual ideology and language

122

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

policy implementation reveals continuing battles between the de jure language policy or ideology and the de facto regional language policy or practice. Examining the intertextuality of ideological discourses in the official documents of the key policy agents, governments, political parties, and movements of pre-and post-1991 Ethiopia, all have explicitly addressed questions of nations and nationalities. Thus, it can be argued that all have multilingual language ideologies, underpinned by various overt or covert agendas or motivations. One could ask whether such explicit manifestations of language ideology would be reflected in actual language policy or practices. For instance, the exiled Emperor’s speech on May 1941, on the verge of regaining his power, explicitly stated that a new Ethiopia will emerge, whereby all Ethiopians will be equal before the law. . . . In the new Ethiopia, We desire you to be a people who will never be discriminated against, who have equality and freedom before the law... It is Our foremost desire and objective to . . . establish in Ethiopia a government which respects and protects religion, and by permitting the freedom of conscience to the people ... (Tekle-Tsadiq Mekuria 1936 EC, pp. 341–342)

This speech, with its explicit ideology, was underpinned by the Emperor’s implicit agenda, which was manifested in the post-1991 official documents (e.g. the 1955 Constitution) and the centralized and hegemonic ideological manifestations depicted in practice (only-Amharic policy and practices). Such explicit ideological manifestations have been confounded by multiple planned and unplanned consequences. The HSIU student movement had a socialism-oriented nation-building ideology, which valued the rights of the nations and nationalities of Ethiopia. This ideology has continued to influence the official policies and ideologies of the governments since then. All have explicitly stipulated the rights of all nations and nationalities, though in practice all seem to have implicit ideologies and agendas. The explicit ideologies, as manifested in the official documents, have implicitly continued to run de facto hegemonic language policies under their respective sociopolitical and historical contexts. In other words, as there has existed explicit discourse interplay among the policy documents from the HSIU student movement to the present federal and regional government structure, there also exist sociopolitically and historically constructed or implicit discursive interplays with implicit manifestations and appropriation mechanisms across the various pre-and post-1991 Ethiopia contexts and arrangements. Concerning conflicts between an officially proclaimed language policy, or official ideology, and language practices on the ground, Shohamy (2006) argues that LPP of even a democratic multilingual policy country “on the surface may follow the rules of democratic societies, including the promotion of language learning, yet the actual language policy . . . is often in contradiction to these policies” (p. 46). In Ethiopia, despite the ideological foundations of the federal government and its Constitution or policies, the regional language policies appear to be de facto continuations of the past centrist and hegemonic nation building ideology in a decentralized and federally constituted regional political structure.

5.3 LPP as a Dynamic, Contextual Process

5.3.3

123

LPP and Resistance Ideologies and Movements

From the results of this study, we could imply that although problems of language and education are hardly independent of other material and objective realities and structures of domination and inequality, the Ethiopian LPP contexts revealed that language in education policy, and language policy in general, have actually served as effective channels of political mobilization and rationalization either by state agents or elites. Thus, language and language policy in Ethiopia have been key ideological tools to larger political struggle and contestation. The LPP contextual cases in this study illustrate how, on the one hand, minority language groups struggle for or demand their own language spaces, while on the other hand, the majority language groups continue to maintain or perpetuate their dominant language spaces. For instance, it is claimed that the imposition of the only-Amharic policy on Tigrinya speakers has resulted in resentments toward the hegemonic policy, its agents, and probably the language itself, which further strengthened Tigray nationalism. As a result of the emergence of the Tigray nationalist movement, the regional majority’s Tigrinya-based language in education approach has been in practice in some liberated parts of Tigray under the control of the TPLF, despite the Amharic-based official monolingual policy of the Dergue, which critical or postmodern LPP scholars call ‘Resistance Policy’. Consequently, it is claimed that the use of Tigrinya in the Hara-Merets region of Tigray has made the TPLF win the hearts and the minds of the Tigray people and gave impetus to the liberation movement. Besides, when the TPLF controlled the entire region in 1989, it became the language of education of the regional state. John Young (2006) argues that the “employment of Tigrinya as the language of instruction in schools graphically illustrated the TPLF’s goal of winning control of Tigray’s culture from outsiders” (p. 173). This implies that Tigrinya is a symbolic working language in Tigray and represents the success of the national liberation struggle, which accommodated Tigrinya linguistic nationalism. It also implies that the language ideology that gave rise to the Tigrinya-based resistance in Tigray is a reflection of the political ideology of the Tigray people’s political or national liberation struggle, which can be compared to the symbolic function that Kiswahili played during the political movement in Tanzania (Cooper 1989).

5.3.4

LPP, Ideology, and Power in a Multilingual LPP Context

The post-1991 Tigray language in education policy has its ideological roots in the TPLF-based national struggle, with its origins in the TPLF. The regional state run by the TPLF has continued to provide primary education only through the majority group’s language, regardless of the ethno-linguistic diversity of the region and contrary to the official language policies stated in the federal and regional

124

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

Constitutions and policy documents and in contradiction to the ideological foundations of the TPLF. Such language practice reflects what contemporary LPP scholars call “implicit or de facto language policy/practice” in the context of “Unity within Diversity” as the federal government’s nation building ideology. In both periods (pre-and post-liberation), we don’t find an official ideology or policy that offers the Tigrinya language such a hegemonic status while relegating the other nationality languages to invisibility. Yet, it can be claimed that this ideology or policy can be understood from the TPLF documents, official statements, and mechanisms used by key TPLF or government agents. Fishman (1991, 2006) contends that the absence of authoritative policy always works in favor of the stronger party and gives rise to a “no-policy policy.” Thus, we could claim that such implicit policies, or intentionally or unintentionally unplanned policies, are not only dubious but that the purpose of such policies is to implicitly perpetuate or maintain dominant groups’ hidden ideologies, interests, and power and thus to ultimately marginalize the minority language groups. Wiley (2006) claims that many language policies tend to be implicit, as they result more from institutional practices and ideologies than from official state policies. Haas (1992) relates such policies or practices to institutional racism, in which systematic or implicit mechanisms are used to perpetuate dominant ideologies, and thus to dominate the “others.” This implies that policy agents and mechanisms need to be recognized as agents and tools for creating and appropriating not only explicit policies and their underpinning ideologies but also implicit policies and ideologies, which create dynamic policy contexts for tensions and interplays between macro-level and micro-level policies, practices, and ideologies. We can further imply that language policy (de jure or de facto) is a process underpinning or underpinned by sociopolitical and historical contexts and factors, which include understanding of and desire for dominant and dominated groups.

5.3.5

Community-Based LPP Processes and Contextual Agents

Individuals from the Saho language community questioned the quality of their children’s schooling through their non-native tongue and discussed the right to use their language in school. Thus, in 2007/2008, having formed a committee, they took the initiative to perform language policy and planning activities and corpus planning (orthography development), which was intended to lead to make policy decisions on the status of the Saho language (status planning) and its use in education (acquisition planning; decisions on the use of Saho language as a language of instruction). Thus, corpus planning was not just left to linguists or language professionals. Although the language corpus study was largely conducted by two linguists, final decisions on orthography choices involved Irob community members and final approval by the political bodies at the Wereda and regional levels (Irob Wereda and then the Tigray

5.3 LPP as a Dynamic, Contextual Process

125

Regional State People’s Council). This implies that corpus planning is as political a process as status planning and that decisions about corpus planning are foundational factors to further policy decisions (status planning and acquisition planning). These findings seem to contradict positivist distinctions between status planning and corpus planning that isolate status planning from corpus planning and understand that status planning requires political decisions by macro-level authorities or policy agents, while corpus planning requires technical decisions by linguists or professional bodies. Supporting these findings, Shohamy (2006) contends that “there is no language planning that is detached from some aspect of ideology” (p. 49). Fishman (2000, p. 44) claims that the differentiation between corpus and status planning is more complex, as corpus planning can be hidden, and issues that can “be advanced on purely linguistic grounds, can often imply a hidden status planning agenda” (p. 44). Finally, the individually initiated Irob LPP activities reflect the emergence of resistance policy and planning ideologies, initiatives, and practices from the bottom, probably as a result of the de facto language policies and practices from above. Given that most of the individuals who initiated and further carried out the Irob LPP process were teachers and educators, they can be seen as resistance policy agents. Describing a similar resistance situation concerning English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) policies in the United States, Auerbach (2000) argues that such policies can be “politically reactionary and educationally unsound” and thus “vehemently” opposed by most ESOL educators, who often stand “at the forefront of the struggle to uphold language rights and oppose linguistic repression” (p. 177). Concerning use of Saho and Kunama in instruction, the Irob Development Association and the Irob Cultural Association conducted discussions with the language community, and then negotiations were held with the Irob district administration and its council, which had transferred the case to the regional council of representatives. Following the regional peoples’ representative council’s (the Tigray National Regional State’s Parliament) discussions of the case, the council passed a new language policy on the use of Saho and Kunama languages in and for education. Since 2009/2010, these languages have started to be taught as subjects to students up to grade 6. The Tigray Regional Bureau of Education and its subsidiary organs are responsible for its implementation. This seems to imply that micro-level resistance policy ideologies and initiatives can bring about macro- and meso-level policy changes. At the same time, so far no language except Tigrinya is used as a language of instruction. The policy from the regional government body claims that the Irob community lacks the required human resources, and the Saho language is less developed to serve as an MOI. Besides, the historically claimed identity of the Irob people (as reflected by some of the Irob community members) and comments at the first TPLF conference reveal that the region constitutes a homogenous sociolinguistic group, “Tigray.” Schiffman (2006) argued that covert language policies may show ulterior motivations in which the underlying objective is against an egalitarian language policy. Such implicit language policies result in implementation that works against minority groups.

126

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

As a result, we see evidence of policy agencies and agents with overt or hidden ideologies or agendas for continuing to run the de facto monolingual education policy and practices regardless of the bottom-up efforts of the regional minority language community to create an inclusive regional language policy. Shohamy (2006) pointed out that language policy “acts as a manipulative tool in the continuing battle between different ideologies” (p. 45) and thus, “authorities often use propaganda and ideologies about language loyalty, patriotism, and collective identity . . . as strategies for continuing their control and holding back the demands of these “others” (p. 46). Nonetheless, in the Irob Wereda schools, students and teachers often used Saho as a de facto MOI, particularly in situations where the use of Tigrinya was difficult in the teaching and learning process, and they were often observed switching to the Saho language. This implies that policy, as a process of human interaction, negotiation, and resistance (what Levinson et al. 2009, called “appropriation”), has led the teachers and students to “interpret and take in elements of policy, thereby incorporating these discursive resources into their own schemes of interest, motivation, and action” (p. 779) and thus make policy “their own.”

5.4

Theoretical Implications of the Study

Official policies (federal, state, or regional) are supposed to guide district or regional policy adoption and implementation, so that the districts or regions can maintain or perpetuate those policies. Yet, the Tigray regional language policy and practices can be seen as resistance to the linguistic hegemony of the centralized state power, the Derg. On the other hand, it can be seen as a reflection of an emerging regional linguistic hegemony in a decentralized federal political system, which has led to resistance by the regional minority language groups to policy initiatives and negotiated language policy changes. (During the Derg regime, Ethiopia was made up of 14 districts, called “Kifle-Hager,” which means parts or sections of the country. These districts were not formed based on ethnicity or languages. Since the federal political system of the country is in place, post-1991, Ethiopia has been made up of 9 regional states, which seem to have been formed on the basis of nationalities with similar or common cultures and languages (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 1995). Yet, the implementation of this minority group’s policy initiative and negotiated changes has been obstructed by covert residual resistance ideologies or policy implementations or practices. Taking such LPP contextual happenings, we find dissonance between the country’s policy and the regional policy or practices, which imply that there are tensions among various policy agents with their own overt or covert language ideologies, beliefs, orientations, or agendas, which has led to intended or unintended language planning mechanisms and language practices. As Ricento and Hornberger (1996) state, a government or its bodies as agents of LPP can have “nonlinguistic agendas,” and planning can lead to “unintended outcomes,”

5.4 Theoretical Implications of the Study

127

incomplete or inappropriate implementation, and “sketchy or nonexistent” evaluation (p. 404). Thus, it seems logical to argue that, considering the Ethiopian sociopolitical and historical LPP contexts, ideology has been a driving force for the language policies of the country. Language groups in power have utilized language or language policy to perpetuate and maintain their language-based ideology and dominance. Constitutions and official policy documents, official language laws, and language proclamations and declarations have served as language policy mechanisms for perpetuating the policy agents’ ideologies and agendas, which can have an impact on the ways that language policy is practiced on the ground. This understanding of the LPP contextual processes of Ethiopia leads us to assert that ideology has driven LPP contextual processes and is an interlinking and underpinning factor to language policy and practice, along with the policy mechanisms and agents involved in creating, interpreting, and appropriating LPP. The notion that language is ideological explains why states’ language policies are often contested by majority and minority language groups. The language policy cases in Tigray illustrate that the regional majority first struggled against the hegemonic policy and developed a resistance language policy or practice. However, later (post-1991), while the majority continued to run a residual resistance policy and maintain the language space already in practice (de facto continuation of Tigrinya as MOI throughout Tigray), the minority language group (the Irob) engaged in a resistance language policy and practices to gain language space for the language of the Irob people (with Saho as a de facto MOI). These activities imply that even when a polity’s political system is “democratic,” there may not be a policy that allows nationalities or groups to choose and use any language they wish for education or other purposes. Even though the Irob community developed a Saho LPP and officially requested that Saho be used as an MOI, use of the language remains restricted, and most school teachers and students use the language unofficially and in code-switching contexts. The fact that only Tigrinya is used as a language of tests or examinations serves to denounce such de facto uses and perpetuate language-based social stratification and inequality. Thus, LPP contextual processes are often reflections of the tensions over language choice among different agents with divergent language ideologies, policies, and practices. Language policy decisions from the top do not always reflect the language community’s language ideologies and language practices, and the language community can work against top-down language policy decisions and take various initiatives to resist, negotiate, or change the LPP contexts. In this light, McCarty (2011) argues that “decisions about language are always context dependent and hence can be both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic” (p. 9). Thus, LPP is often a context-dependent ideological issue, de jure language policies or ideologies and de facto language policies or practices are often in contradiction, and multiple agents with divergent ideologies and agendas at multiple policy making levels act and react through multiple mechanisms. In this study, micro, meso, and macro-level agents took part in the policy making process. This included individuals from the Irob community (elders, community representatives,

128

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

ILCA and IDA members, and representatives from the Catholic and Orthodox churches), officials from the Wereda administration and council, and regional institutions (the head of the Irob Wereda Information and Communication Office, officials from the TRSEB, the TRS Information Bureau, and CAT), who took part in the Dowhan Irob Community’s LPP Conference. The study showed that LPP involves interplay and tensions within a policy layer and its agents and across the multiple policy layers and their agents. There were tensions between the individuals of the Irob community on the corpus planning decisions; a gap between the regional policy decision and use of the Saho language in education; interplays and conflicts of discourses on the capacity of the Saho language by Irob community members and macro policy agents. These interplays and tensions confirm Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) claim that “LPP is a multilayered construct, where . . . agents, levels, and processes . . . permeate and interact with each other in multiple and complex ways as they enact various types, approaches, and goals of LPP” (p. 419). Johnson (2004) asserts that the distinction between top-down and bottom-up approaches to LPP reflects “the relationship between state-authored policy and the community affected by language policy” (p. 93). We could argue that the Irob community took a bottom-up policy approach. Yet, these decisions were subject to a top-down approach, which involved Wereda and Regional government bodies. Thus, we see an interaction between bottom-up and top-down approaches and tensions between them. The fact that the Irob community has had a say in the Saho language decisions, which have been approved by the meso-macro government bodies, implies that the Irob LPP has followed democratic principles. Yet, the top-down policy appropriation, which has been in contradiction to the bottom-up planners, supports the argument that all planning is done by a few individuals with all the power (Calvet 1998). This, on the other hand, contradicts the assertion that “people who experience the consequences of language policy should have a major role in making policy decisions” (Tollefson 2006, p. 45).

5.5

A New Understanding of LPP Processes

Given the complex relationships between the top-down and bottom-up policies and approaches, it is sound to assert that treating them separately as top-down and bottom-up does not align with the evidence that LPP is a multilayered contextual process in which multiple policy layers, agents, and constructs interact through multiple ways. In line with this assertion, Johnson (2004) points out that such distinctions “obfuscate the multiple levels of context which influence language policy decisions and ignore how policy making power can be differentially allocated within the community” (p. 93). These LPP contexts also illustrate how Spolsky’s (2004) three components of language policy -- language ideologies (beliefs/attitudes), language practices (language ecology), and language management (language planning), shown in Fig. 5.1 –

5.5 A New Understanding of LPP Processes

129

LANGUAGE POLICY

LANGUAGE PLANNING

LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY

LANGUAGE PRACTICES

Fig. 5.1 Tripartite LPP Theory. (Spolsky 2004 as reconstructed by Shohamy 2006, p. 53)

shape and are shaped by explicit and implicit language policies as they are constructed by multi-level agencies. From the findings of this study, we could conclude that an attempt to study a language policy of a polity solely from the official policy document(s) or statement(s) is not likely to lead to an understanding of the real language policy. The “Real” language policy seems to underpin or be underpinned by the interplay and tensions between and among the language ideology, language practice, language planning, and agency, which together help us unravel the explicit and implicit dimensions or manifestations of an official language policy or ideology. Such a “Real” language policy conception leads us to further understand that LPP, contrary to what is often claimed by those with positivist orientations, is not a linear process. Rather, it is a dynamic ideological and contextual process, which moves from practices to policies, from de facto policy to de jure policy, and from policy implementation to policy formulation. Further, it can be argued that LPP does not occur in isolation, since the contextual cases in this study revealed that the processes are full of complex interplays and tensions between top-down and bottom-up policy agents and mechanisms and among multilayered policy agents and their explicit or implicit mechanisms, ideologies or discourses, and practices. This complexity suggests the LPP framework shown in Fig. 5.2, which is an attempt to re-envision Spolsky’s tripartite model. The theoretical framework above assumes that LPP is a dynamic contextual process. The framework illuminates each of the LPP constructs within a circle, with aspects that are interconnected and overlapping. Thus, the framework does not consider LPP as a linear process that moves from policy formulation to implementation and finally to evaluation/revision, with each being a distinct component or phase of the LPP process. It also does not consider policy formulation and implementation as a top-down approach or distinguish between top-down and bottom-up policy approaches. The framework shows that LPP is a multilayered and dynamic contextual process that constitutes interactions of multiple-level agents, policy planning, practices, mechanisms, and ideologies.

130

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

Fig. 5.2 Ideology as a Locus of LPP

5.5.1

Implications for CLP Research

LPP research is claimed to lack an overarching LPP conceptual or theoretical framework or model, despite the existence of an increasing number of theoretical conceptualizations (e.g., Ricento and Hornberger 1996; Ricento 2006). Johnson (2007) claimed that contemporary LPP research lacks empirical data to test the various LPP theories or concepts. CLP scholars also contend that LPP research needs to examine localized processes (Blommaert 1996; Canagarajah 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2011) and be “engaged critically with the wider social and political conditions, crucially, their historical antecedents” (May 2006, pp. 255–256), and which can encompass the different “factors and institutions involved” in the LPP processes (Tollefson 2006, p. 51). Ricento and Hornberger (1996), having developed the “Unpeeling the Onion Metaphor of LPP,” claimed that their framework suffers from having illustrative cases or activities of the multiple policy layers and the ways that macro-level and micro-level policies and processes interact (Ricento 2000). Taking Ethiopia and the Tigray region as a microcosm to CLP research, this study has tried to critically examine some of the CLP research concerns and gaps. It has illuminated some empirical data related to localized LPP processes across the various sociopolitical and historical contexts of pre- and post-1991 Ethiopia; localized cases, which illustrate LPP not solely as a top-down or bottom-up policy process but also as a complex interaction among policy approaches and agents and thus a multilayered process; and localized contextual processes, which show that LPP is not a linear process but a multilayered and dynamic construct. Therefore, the study has practical implications and can fill some of the empirical data gaps that contemporary LPP research suffers from. Furthermore, it has attempted to re-envision key CLP theoretical frameworks and conceptions (Tripartite LPP Model, Peeling the Onion Metaphor, Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Approaches, and

5.5 A New Understanding of LPP Processes

131

Explicit and Implicit Language Policies) and to propose a theoretical framework, Ideology as a Locus of Language Policy. It is hoped that this will contribute to existing LPP theories and give a new angle to the objective of CLP research to develop an overarching language policy theory.

5.5.2

Implications for Future LPP Research

LPP as a dynamic and contextual process implies that the findings of this study are not generalizable outside the contextual cases of Tigray in Ethiopia. Even within Tigray, the study is not generalizable to processes of regional nationalities other than Tigray and Irob. In working with other Ethiopian nationalities, there could be agents with different ideologies and power at the federal, regional, and local levels, with different reactions to or understandings of federal, regional, or local official and informal language policy texts or discourses and practices. Thus, the conclusions and theoretical implications of this study need to be supplemented by research in the field. To this end, further ethnographic research is necessary in order to understand how de jure or de facto language policies are articulated in local practice and in ideologies or discourses in the process of creating, interpreting, and implementing language policies. If we are in need of multilingual LPP put into practice on the ground, future LPP research needs to be ethnographic and focus on LPP processes at various layers of policy making, particularly at the local level.

5.5.3

Implications for Policy and Decision Makers

Language policy (explicit or implicit) is a dynamic and contextually dependent process with complex overt or covert interplays and dichotomies between or among the constructs, which could have sociopolitical ramifications. Language and language policy are delicate subjects in Ethiopia. Consequently, the language rights of different groups are critical to addressing the long-time questions of the nations and nationalities of Ethiopia. Yet, the language policies of the country still face various types of reactions and resistance, from federal and regional government agents, the language community, and non-governmental institutions and individuals (activists, educators, school teachers, and students). In a democratic political system, the direction from which these resistances or discourses come from could be less important. Yet, issues such as what these discourses and resistances are, why they have happened, and whose interests or ideologies they reflect could be worth investigating. From a policy maker’s angle, a critical approach to language policy in Ethiopia would focus on bringing together the macro- and micro-level language policies, ideologies, and practices; their agents and mechanisms; and their implications. This would require an ethnographic approach.

132

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

Finally, the incongruence between de jure and de facto language policies explains many of the implementation gaps and problems identified. These gaps can emanate from intended or unintended goals or from overt or covert agendas of different agents. When such implementation gaps occur, people often address the problem as lack of “Good Governance,” which the government seems to be highly concerned about at this time. To address these concerns, beyond paying them lip service, the government needs to critically examine the “Real” causes of the problems on the ground -- at the micro or local community level – since that is where the actual manifestations of a “Real” language policy happen.

5.6

Implications and Future Directions

In Chap. 1, some theoretical and academic justifications for studying language policy in Tigray and Ethiopia were presented, and a case was made about the wider international value of doing so. In the extended account of the research site and its complex linguistic, sociopolitical, and historical context, as presented in Chap. 2, another set of reasons for the value of international readers coming to know more about Tigray and Ethiopia emerge. The justification that was put forward in Chap. 1 builds on international writing and documentation of LPP in diverse settings, with many scholars calling for a more robust and critical edge to language policy studies and for such studies to move away from general accounts abstracted to entire nations to look closely at the nuance and particularity of micro and meso cases. These localized LPP processes (Blommaert 1996; Canagarajah 2006; Hornberger and Johnson 2011) are to be understood, however, with reference to wider social and political conditions, and specifically with historical antecedents that generated the ideological frameworks and underpinnings that prevail in a specific setting. In this study empirical qualitative data has been presented and analyzed that responds to these calls, from a setting in which many theoretical lenses can inform and advance understanding of the local dynamics. What the research contributes is an integration of these diverse perspectives with a critical language approach. The CLP framework that has been deployed in the Ethiopia and the Tigray region cases discussed in this volume are, therefore, localized LPP accounts, but in connection with key sociopolitical and historical events, and the critical one is the dividing line of 1991 as a watershed series of events. Second, the work has moved away from linear processes and top-down accounts to a fusion of both top-down and bottom-up dynamics. A linear process, as described in Chap. 1, would move through a cycle of formulation, implementation, and evaluation, but in fact this is far too simplistic and represents an idealized model rather than what I have been describing as a multilayered and dynamic construct. It is likely that less dynamic forms of analysis would not be able to account for the social stratification effects of LPP processes nor the agency available to different policy actors across various levels of the LPP process.

5.6 Implications and Future Directions

133

At the outset, I indicated the hope that this research would help to enlighten subjugated language groups to the effects on social opportunity, restricting or opening it up, which LPP can play in social and economic life, and highlighted the need for counter-social stratification strategies and processes to be taken up and used with groups wanting to advance their language and cultural autonomous interests. The emergence and promulgation of official multilingual policies and ideologies in Ethiopia, framed around the pre/post 1991 political watershed, have led to de facto monolingual policies and ideologies. These have, in turn, provoked reactions in counter-hegemonic policies and practices and this core dynamic present in this research through its qualitiative account of actors and their understanding of their role and reasoning for their actions. By illuminating micro-level processes and constructs vis-à-vis macro-level processes and constructs, the study has revealed stark contrasts between what is and was officially proclaimed as multilingual pluralism, and what are enacted and experienced in states, and sub-regional areas, in practice. Centering interests of dominant groups and local groups’ reactions and counter-hegemonic responses can explain the perceived difference between liberal intent and restrictive practice, between formal texts of official policy and local realities of implementation that contradict each other, or at least are in unresolved tension. The “site” at which LPP is taken to exist helps to explain how and why residual resistance to pluralism emanated from and is traceable to dominant groups and their interests, and then percolate into instructionally rooted practices, undergirding ideologies, and administrative mechanisms and agents who carry out policy intentions. Policy agency is dispersed among various actors. The data collected in this study shows that even though the majority or dominant language groups persisted with language policies and practices that correspond to their interests and priorities, this does not foreclose the LPP analystical space. Both individuals and groups from the minority were found to be present in the LPP world, as activists and educators, and in ongoing struggle they were able to claim and succeed in gaining key language spaces. In these some language rights were carved out in practice, through microlevel resistance. This activity is a clear and responsive form of LPP, of language policies, processes, and mechanisms, that cannot ultimately be confined to the micro-setting where it is enacted, because through influence, it also affected the macro-level policies. We can conclude that what is required for the scholarly areas of language policy and planning studies is a broad-ranging theoretical framing that is characterised by active processes. At various stages in this book, I have characterised these as a dynamic, multilayered, and contextual process. Qualitiative research can illuminate these processes, which otherwise remain obscured by academic approaches that focus only on official texts, declarations of formal language policy, or laws and constitutional provisions. Overt and formal policy of this kind has a mirror image in the covert practices, language policies, ideologies, mechanisms, and agents of protagonissts “on the ground,” whose micro work can often influence even the formal process and promulgation of policy in its own right.

134

5 Research Implications and Policy Lessons

References1 Auerbach, E. 2000. When pedagogy meets politics: Challenging English Only in adult education. In R.D. Gonzalez and I. Melis (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the Official English Movement (pp. 177–204). Urbana, IL and Mahwah, NJ: NCTE and Lawrence Erlbaum. Bekale Seyoum. 2012. Language diversity and the challenges of government language planning in Ethiopia. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Addis Ababa University. Blommaert, J. 1996. Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3), 199–222. Calvet, L. J. (1998). Language wars and linguistic policies. New York: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Blackwell. Cooper, R. L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). 1995. Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa. Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. 2000. The status agenda in corpus planning. In R. D. Lambert and E. G. Shohamy (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 43–53). Philadephia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fishman, J. A. 2006. Do not leave your language alone. New York: Routledge. Haas, P. M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy. International Organization: Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination, 46(1), 1–35. Hornberger, N. H., and Johnson, D.C. 2011. The Ethnography of language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 273–289). New York: Routledge. Johnson, D. C. 2004. Language policy discourse and bilingual language planning. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(2), 73–97. Johnson, D. C. 2007. Language policy within the school district of Philadelphia. (Unpublished PhD. dissertation). Department of Educational Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. Levinson, B. A., Sutton, M. and Winstead, T. 2009. Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795. May, S. 2006. Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 255–272). Oxford: Blackwell. McCarty, T. L. 2011. Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge. McNab, C. 1988. Language policy and practice: Implementation dilemmas in Ethiopian education. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University. Ricento, T. 2000. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213. Ricento, T. (Ed.). 2006. An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. Ricento, T., and Hornberger, N. H. 1996. Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–428.

1

The convention for citation of Ethiopian authors is followed here for Ethiopian names, which is an individual’s personal name followed by a separate patronym (the given or first name of a person’s father) followed in some cases by an avonymic, or an earlier male ancestor. These are not separated by a comma or other punctuation. Unless an indivudal has modified his or her name to prefer initials for some components, all the relevant names are used in citation and referencing.

References

135

Schiffman, H. F. 2006. Language policy and linguistic culture. In T Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Oxford: Blackwell. Shohamy, E. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Oxford: Routledge. Spolsky B. 2004. Language policy: Key topics in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tekle-Tsadiq Mekuria. 1936 EC. Ye’Etyopia Tarik: Katse Tewdros eske om Haile Silassie. Addis Ababa. Tollefson, J.W. 2006. Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Oxford: Blackwell. Wiley, T. G. 2006. The lessons of historical investigation: Implications for the study of language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 135–152). Oxford: Blackwell. Young, J. 2006. Peasant revolution in Ethiopia: The Tigray People’s Liberation Front, 1975-1991. (Original PhD research 1997) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Abbreviations AESOM ANDM CAT CDA CLP EFFORT EPDM EPRDF EPRP ESM FDRE HSIU IC IDA ILCA LEP LL LPP LP MLEP MOE MOI MTEP NETP NRST OLF OPDO

All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement Amhara National Democratic Movement (EPRDF) Cultural Association of Tigray Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Language Policy Endowment Fund for Rehabilitation of Tigray Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement/ANDM Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party Ethiopian Student Movement Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1995) Haile Selassie I University Irob Community/ies Irob Development Association Irob Language and Culture Association Language in Education Policy Linguistic Landscape Language Policy and Planning Language Policy Multilingual Education Policy Ministry of Education Medium of Instruction Mother Tongue Education Policy New Education and Training Policy National Regional State of Tigray Oromo Liberation Front Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (EPRDF)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4

137

138

PS REST RLP RSEB SEPDF SNNPR TGE TLF TNO TNRS TPLF TRSEB TNO TTI TUSA UNESCO UNMEE

Appendices

Primary School Relief Society of Tigray Rational Language Policy Regional State Education Bureau Southern Ethiopian Peoples’ Democratic Front Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region Transitional Government of Ethiopia (1991–1995) Tigray Liberation Front Tigray National Organization Tigray National Regional State Tigray People’s Liberation Front Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Tigray National Organization Teacher Training Institution Tigray University Students’ Association United Nations Education Science and Cultural rganization United Nations Military for Ethiopia and Eritrea

Appendix 2. Ethiopian Terms (Tigrinya and *Amharic) Terms marked with * are Amharic. Bet: A Place or a house Bet Shahi: Café Bahli Tigray’: Tigray culture Debre Genet: Heavenly place Derg: Committee; from ‘Provisional Military Administrative Committee, term used to describe the regime of 1974–1991 Dimtsi Biher Tigray’: The voice of the Tigray people *Ena: And Etek: To be or get armed Hara Meret: Liberated or free areas or districts Hidar: Ethiopian Month, approximately November Lideta Mariam: St. Mary Megnita: Bed or bedroom *Megnita Bet: Pension Muhuran: Elites Semenawi Ko’keb: The Northern Star Shahi: Tea *Shay: Amharic word for tea *Shay Bet: Café Wereda: District Weyane: Revolt, rebellion, revolution; used initially of the 1943 uprising in Tigray, and subsequently of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and its struggle Yekatit: Ethiopian month, approximately February

Appendices

139

Appendix 3. Ethiopian Calendar and Naming Systems The Ethiopian calendar differs from the Gregorian calendar. Thus, in cases where the original sources used the Ethiopian calendar, the dates are marked by EC. The Ethiopian new year begins on September 11 and is 8 years (January 1–September 10) or 7 years (September 11–December 31) behind the Gregorian year. Ethiopian names are not based on family or surnames. For Ethiopian authors, therefore, bibliographical listings and references in the text do not invert first and second names but rather provide both: author’s name often followed by author’s father’s name. For non-Ethiopian authors, surnames are used.

Appendix 4. Documents Consulted Primary Sources of Data Official Letters Irob Language and Culture Association (ILCA), No: 07/12/2001, Date: 16/03/2001 EC Irob Wereda Council, Office of House Speaker, No: We/e/3/3/24, Date: 12/03/2001 EC

Official Minutes ILCA Minutes of 1–2/13/2011 EC Meetings on the Saho LPP Processes ILCA Minutes of 1–2/13/2011 EC Irob Nationality’s Dowhan Conference Decisions on the Saho LPP and Orthography of the Saho Language ILCA Minutes of 21–22/10/2000 EC Coordinating Committee’s Meeting on assigning individuals to various Saho LPP Tasks ILCA Minutes of 22/10/2002 EC Meeting on selecting papers and their presenters for the Dowhan General Saho LPP Conference ILCA Minutes of 24–25/12/2000 EC Final Verification Meeting of the Papers for Presentation and the Orthography Development Processes followed Minutes of 21/11/2000 E.C Addis Ababa based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language Minutes of 11/12/2000 E.C Mekelle-based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language Minutes of 10/12/2000 E.C Adi-grat based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language Minutes of 19/12/2000 E.C Dowhan-based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language

140

Appendices

Official and Unofficial Reports and Documents Technical Committee’s Study Report on the Saho Orthography Development, Presented in the Dowhan General Conference on the Saho LPP A Survey Report on the Use of Tigrinya as an MOI to Non-Tigrayan Nationalities’ School Children in Tigray, Confidential Unpublished Report to the Cultural Association of Tigray A Discussion Paper for Establishing a Tigrinya Language Academy, 1987 E.C TOR for Establishing the Tigray language Academy, Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT), 1993 E.C Irob Nationality’s Oral Tradition, Zigta Hadgu, presented at the second Tigray Language Symposium, 1999 EC Saho Language Use and Expansion, Esayas Tajebe, presented at the second Tigray Language Symposium, 1999 EC Policy and Strategies for Tigray Languages, a discussion paper by Gebreab Barnabas, Hailemichael Abera, Gebremedhin Simon, Hailu Habtu, and Teklehaimanot Haiesselassie, presented at the second Tigray Language Symposium, 1999 EC CAT Founding Document, Revised Version, CAT third Forum, Hidar 1997 EC Irob Development Association (IDA), Founding Document (no date) The first TPLF Conference Report, 1971, Tigray

Media Archives Addis Admas, newspaper, Page 9-Yekatit 26, 2003 EC Edition Tigray Media Agency and EBC, Interview with key founders of the TPLF January, 23, 2015 Sheger FM 102.1, Ye Chewata Engida, Meaza Burue’s Interview with the late TPLF founder and renowned TPLF artist, Eyasu Berhe UNMEE, newspaper, January, 2003 BBC archive broadcast in EBC Amharic Program, February 7, 2015, Interview with the TPLF founder and late PM, Meles Zenawi The History of TPLF, Tigray Media Agency-EBC, January 23, 2015, Interview with the TPLF founders, a special TPLF 40 Year Anniversary Program

Official Speech Tigray National Regional State’s Ex-President, Gebru Asrat, opening speech delivered at the first Tigrinya Language Symposium, September, 1987 EC

Appendices

141

Constitutions, Political Programs, and Policy Documents Revised Constitution of 1955, NEGARIT GAZETA, 15th Year, No.2, Addis Ababa, November 4, 1955 Program of the National Democratic Revolution, in basic documents of the Ethiopian Government, Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Government, 1976 Policy Decisions on Languages of Education, Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE), 1991 The New Education and Training Policy, Ministry of Education (MOE), 1994 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, FDRE, 1995 Constitution of the Tigray National Regional State, Revised Version, Hidar 6, 1994 EC Program for Implementation and Strategy Capacity Building, FDRE, Ministry of Information, Press and Audio-Visual Department, Addis Ababa, Yekatit, 1994 EC Proclamation 249/2006: Establishing Tigray Language Academy Proclamation 86/2007: A Regulation on Using the Tigray Languages

Secondary Sources of Data History Books, Articles A History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1974. Bahru Zewde, 1991. The origin of Amharic, Addis Ababa: French Center of Ethiopian Studies, Girma Awgichew, 2009 Peasant Revolution in Ethiopia: The Case of the Tigray Peoples Liberation Movement, John Young, 1997. Tsin’at, TPLF History, Vol.1, Hailay Hadgu, 2001 E.C Pioneers of Change in Ethiopia. The Reformist Intellectuals of the Early Twentieth Century. Addis Ababa: AAUP. Bahru Zewde, 2002. A Political History of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (1975–1991): Revolt, Ideology and Mobilization in Ethiopia, Verije Universiteit, Aregawi Berhe, 2008. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation)

Appendix 5. Objectives of the First Tigrinya Language Symposium September 6–8, 1987 E.C The conference was held for 3 days, September 6–8, 1987 E.C/ 1994/5 in Mekelle. The conference, entitled the first Tigrinya Language Symposium, had the following objectives:

142

Appendices

Gather ideas on the existing status of Tigrinya and look for solutions Pave mechanisms for creating and maintaining standard Tigrinya Pave ways for on how standard and uniform Tigrinya can be used for political, economic, and social domains of life Identify concurrent problems of Tigrinya literatures and Tigrinya writers and ultimately create encouraging environments for producing further works and writers Discuss and reach solutions on mechanisms for establishing a sustainable institution that can solely and with special focus be engaged with the Tigrinya language

Appendix 6. Objectives of the Tigrinya Language Academy September, 1987 E.C The objectives or aims of the Tigrinya Language Academy (TLA) are to: • Develop short-term and long-term study or research programs on the Tigrinya language • Collect, record, analyze, and publish Tigrayan Nationality folktales and oral traditions without making any changes to them • Conduct phonological, social, and anthropological linguistic studies on the Tigrinya; evaluate the findings of such studies and present them for decisions • Prepare a general reference dictionary of the Tigrinya language • Describe, through various ways, the regional government’s working language, policy decisions, research findings of the language academy, language-based decisions, and directives/guidelines • Establish, coordinate, and monitor short-term and long-term committees that can conduct studies and research on the Tigrinya language, and evaluate their work • Have links and collaborations with language academies, universities, and international language institutions and other institutions with similar objectives in and outside Ethiopia • Organize conferences, seminars, and discussion forums on the Tigrinya language • Conduct studies and research on developing a Standard Tigrinya, present these for public discussions, and monitor the results • Give recognition and awards to individuals and institutions that conduct successful studies and research on the Tigrinya language

Appendices

143

Appendix 7. Programs of the Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT) 1993 EC, pp.7–8 The CAT foundation document lists the following as the key programs of the organization: 1. To critically study the Tigray literatures and languages and thus to have better understanding and knowledge of literature and language; To make research-based Tigrinya practical in schools; To make Tigrinya teachers, [and] the media (newspaper, radio, etc.) use research-based Tigrinya; To establish a Standard School for the Tigrinya Language 2. To study Tigray Art . . . 3. To study Tigray Music. . . 4. To study Tigray Sport . . . 5. To study Tigray Architecture . . . 6. To study Tigray History . . . 7. To study Tigray Heritages . . . 8. To study Tigray Cultural Sport . . . 9. To make culture to facilitate Development . . .

Appendix 8. Orthography of Saho Language (Addis Ababa Meeting) Minutes of the Addis Ababa-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language The Addis Ababa-based Saho-speaking community members held a meeting aimed at reaching at policy decisions pertaining to the choice of orthography in their language. The discussion was held on 21/11/2000 EC and was organized by ILCA board members. The community, having held through discussions, finally the majority opted for the use of the Ge’ez script, reasoning that: (i) After all, the Irob people are Ethiopians; thus, we opt for the Ethiopian script, the Ge’ez fidels. (ii) When all African countries use the Latin and Arabic scripts, Ethiopia uses its own script. We, the Irob people, are proud to have such a unique history and continue to be committed to our history through using the Ge’ez script for our language. (iii) Why should we borrow an alien script when we have our own? The use of the Ge’ez script for our language during the literacy campaign is concrete evidence of the viability of the use of the Ge’ez script for our language.

144

Appendices

(v) We understand that the use of the Latin script for our language would take a long time to be practically effective, which in turn would deter our language development. (vi) Since most Saho language vocabularies, particularly agricultural words, are borrowed from Tigrinya, the use of the Ge’ez script would ease in this regard. (vii) If we opt the Ge’ez script, we may not need to create new symbols/fidels.

Appendix 9. Orthography of the Saho Language (Mekelle Meeting) Minutes of the Mekelle-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language In Mekelle, more than 60 Saho community members participated in the discussion held on 11/12/2000 EC Thus, 58 of the participants voted for the use of the Ge’ez, while 3 abstained. The reasons put for choosing the Ge’ez script were: (i) When all African countries use the Latin and Arabic scripts, Ethiopia uses its own script. We, the Irob people, are proud of having such a unique history and continue to be committed to our history through using the Ge’ez script for our language. (ii) The use of the Ge’ez script for our language during the literacy campaign is concrete evidence for the viability of its use for our language. (iii) We can easily communicate with Tigrinya speakers, and they can employ our script, which could contribute to the development of our language. (iv) Since the Ge’ez script is already in use for Tigrinya and Amharic, the use of the same script for our language would ease learning Tigrinya and Amharic.

Appendix 10. Orthography of the Saho Language (Adigrat Meeting) Minutes of the Adigrat-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language On 10/12/2000 EC, the Adigrat-based Saho community members held a meeting organized by the ILCA. The meeting primarily aimed at deciding the orthography of the Saho language. More than 40 Saho-speaking participants were involved. Having conducted thorough discussions on the use of either the Ge’ez script or the Latin script, 31 participants opted for the Ge’ez script, 2 choose the Latin script, and 4 abstained. The reasons for choosing the Ge’ez script were:

Appendices

145

(i) When all African countries use the Latin, and Arabic scripts, Ethiopia uses its own script. We, the Irob people, are proud of having such a unique history and continue to be committed to our history through using the Ge’ez script for our language. (ii) The use of the Ge’ez script for our language during the literacy campaign is concrete evidence of the viability of its for our language. (iii) Most church priests use the Ge’ez script, and its use would be easy even for us.

Appendix 11. Orthography of the Saho Language (Dowhan Meeting) Minutes of the Dowhan-Based Irob Nationality Community Meeting on Orthography of the Saho Language The Dowhan meeting was held on 19/12/2000 EC The meeting focused on decisions on the orthography of the Saho language. The meeting involved more than 40 Saho speakers, of which 31 opted for the use of the Ge’ez script, 8 chose the Latin script, and 3 abstained. The reasons for choosing the Ge’ez script were: (i) Ge’ez is a mark of our tradition, and thus its use for our language would mark our citizenship. (ii) It would be difficult to have smooth understanding/coexistence between those who use the Ge’ez script and those who use the Latin script. (iii) There won’t be a (linguistic/script) gap between the first cycle and second cycle of primary education. (iv) Developing curriculum through the Latin script would be very difficult. The minutes described that a large number of Irob community members who live in Hawassa (Ethiopia), Canada, the United States, Germany, Denmark, and Norway expressed their choices for the use of the Ge’ez script for the Saho language through e-mail (Dowhan Conference Minutes, 2/13/2000 E.C).

Appendix 12. Papers and Study Reports General Conference on Saho LPP Papers and Study Reports Selected for Presentation at the Irob Nationality Dowhan General Conference on Saho LPP The Dowhan General Conference was a summative conference for reaching final decisions on the writing system of the Saho language. To this end, a meeting was called by ILCA, which involved the three committees – coordinating, consultative,

146

Appendices

and technical. The purpose of the meeting was to prepare for discussions at the general conference. One of the issues discussed during the meeting, which was held 24–25/12/2000 E.C, was the conference papers selected for presentation and public discussion. The papers selected by the Coordinating Committee are as follows: The Role of Language for Social Development - Teacher Berhe Zigta1 The Current Status of the Saho Language - Ato Esayas Tajebe The Role of Language in Religious and Cultural Affairs - Aba Abraham Hailu The Orthographic Development Processes for the Saho Language - Ato Esayas Tajebe The Merits and Demerits of using the Ge’ez Script versus the Latin Script for the Saho Language - Teacher Zigta Hadgu2 (Dowhan Conference Minutes, 2/13/2000 EC)

Appendix 13. Number of Participants and Data Collection Methods Phases of the study: number of participants and data collection methods

Research participants’ roles or positions and agencies Pre-1991 TPLF education department (Hara Meret) head Pre-1991 TPLF school director TPLF founders or members TPLF historian (MU) Post-1991 Tigray education bureau head (TGE)

Phases of the study and data collection methods Pilot study phases and methods employed Phase I Phase II In depth Interview Informal Questionnaire Question interview RETU UNR Audio Note naire

Postpiloting Phase III Followup interview

Verification interview

In depth interview

1

1

1

2 1

1 1

(continued)

1 He had long years of experience as a school teacher, and during the Saho policy making process, he had served as a deputy speaker for the Irob People’s Council; then a member of the EFDRE’s Parliament. 2 He served as a school teacher for many years; then as a member of an Opposition Party called ARENA, according to my informant.

Appendices

Research participants’ roles or positions and agencies EPRDF/TGE representative for the MOE TRSEB curriculum ex-head TRSEB curriculum head TRSEB Tigrinya curriculum educators and developers TRSEB planning head Pre-and post1991 primary education teachers Saho LPP process initiators Saho LPP committee members ILCA head Irob Wereda Council house of the speaker Irob Wereda information and communication head Irob Wereda information and communication journalist Adwa TTI instructors MU language educators and mother Tongue researchers Political or language activists CAT head CAT public relations head Total

147

Phases of the study and data collection methods Pilot study phases and methods employed Phase I Phase II In depth Interview Informal Questionnaire Question interview RETU UNR Audio Note naire

Postpiloting Phase III Followup interview

Verification interview

In depth interview

1

1 1

1 3

1 2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

1 2

1

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

2 3

3

2

2

1 1 25

9

5

6

6

1

6

4

7

148

Appendices

Appendix 14. Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials (Interviews) Interview Protocol I Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although detailed issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline can be considered as a general guide or probing-check list that will guide the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Your experience on Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray! Your feeling on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in Tigray! Why has Tigrinya become an MOI in Tigray? Taking thee Constitutional right of the other nationalities in Tigray, how do you see the use of Only Tigrinya for the non-Tigrinya nationalities‟ children? 5. Have you participated in the Saho LPP held at Dowhan? • If yes, what made you take part in the conference? • How did you find the Saho LPP conference? The studies conducted and presented in the conference The discussions of script choice The participants’ interest in using Saho as an MOI or as a subject 6. What made the TRSEB start teaching Saho as a subject rather than as an MOI? 7. What are the main problems or obstacles that led the TRSEB not to start teaching Saho as an MOI? 8. Is/Was there any plan to make Saho start as an MOI? 9. In terms of the Irob nationality’s capacity, do you think the Saho community has the capacity to make start Saho as an MOI? 10. How was the regional administration/council involved on this regard?

Appendices

149

Appendix 15. Tigray State Education Bureau Interview Protocol II Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Educators/Curriculum Developers Who Took Part in the Post1991 Tigrinya MOI Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although detailed issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline can be considered as a general guide or probing-check list to guide the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Why was Tigrinya made an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? Your experiences on Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray! Your feelings on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray! What were the feelings towards the use of Tigrinya as an MOI by people (students, teachers, parents, etc.) who were used to Amharic as an MOI? What were the key views reflected by those people? What were the key problems encountered on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? What solutions were devised in solving or addressing these problems? What type of curriculum was used during the post-1991 primary education in Tigray? What problems did you encounter in implementing and developing the Tigrinya-medium curriculum? Was there any training for teachers on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI? What type? How?

Appendix 16. Interview Protocol III TPLF Founders and TPLF Historians Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although detailed issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline can be

150

Appendices

considered as a general guide or probing-check list to the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant. 1. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? What was the effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language? Peoples’ reaction HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic 2. Your feelings on the use of Amharic as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg periods 3. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle? 4. Why was nationalism made the ideological foundation of the TPLF? 5. What strategies were employed by the TPLF to make to make the struggle have a nationalism oriented peoples‟ movement? 6. What was the key reason for the shift from TEHAHIT into HIWAHAT? 7. What made the TPLF start Hara Meret Education? 8. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed a multilingual policy? Language use for the literacy campaign 9. What made the TPLF start using Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLFcontrolled areas of Tigray? 10. What was the ideological or political role or meaning of the use of Tigrinya as a working language and MOI of the TPLF movement? 11. Why was Tigrinya made to continue as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray?

Appendix 17. Interview Protocol IV TPLF Members and Educators of the Pre-1991 Tigrinya Medium Education Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although detailed issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline can be considered as a general guide or probing-check list to the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant.

Appendices

151

1. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? • Its effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language Peoples’ reaction HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic 2. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed a multilingual policy? Language use for the literacy campaign 3. What made the TPLF start Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLF-controlled areas of Tigray? 4. What were the key problems encountered in using Tigrinya as an MOI? Orthographic problems Educated or trained teachers Textbooks and other materials 5. What was the political meaning of using Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991? 6. How do you see the use of only Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? 7. What do you think would this mean or imply for the other nationalities?

Appendix 18. Interview Protocol V Pre-1991 TPLF Education Department Head, TRSEB Head of Post-1991 TRSEB, and TGE/EPRDF Representative to the MOE during the TGE Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although detailed issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline can be considered as a general guide or probing-check list to the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant. 8. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? • Its effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language Peoples’ reaction HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic

152

Appendices

9. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed a multilingual policy? Language use for the literacy campaign 10. What made the TPLF start Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLF-controlled areas of Tigray? 11. What were the key problems encountered in using Tigrinya as an MOI? Orthographic problems Educated or trained teachers Textbooks and other materials 12. What was the political meaning of using Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991? 13. How about in post-1991 Tigray? Why was Tigrinya used in post-1991 Tigray? Peoples’ feelings Problems encountered Solutions devised 14. As an EPRDF representative for the TGE-MOE, have you been involved in the TGE policy guideline development? 15. If yes, how were the five languages selected as MOI for the post-1991 primary education in Ethiopia? 16. According to the FDRE and regional Constitutions, all nationalities have the right to use, develop and preserve their languages and cultures. But, in Tigray only Tigrinya has been made to continue as an MOI. Why?

Appendix 19. Interview Protocol VI Saho LPP Initiators and/or Community-Based Committee Members for the Saho LPP Introduction This field research interview protocol encompasses kernel points/issues that are highly likely pivotal to collecting the required data. Although key issues about the research theme are raised in this protocol, it is highly likely that other pertinent issues could emerge during the interviews. Hence, this interview guideline is a general guide or probing-check list to the actual in-depth discussions between the researcher and the research participant, and thus a semi-structured interview is followed. 1. How do you view Tigrinya as an MOI for all nationalities in Tigray? • In relation to FDRE and Regional Constitution • What effect do you see on Saho speaking children?

Appendices

153

2. What made the Saho language community start to question for the use of Saho as an MOI? • Who started it? • How? What processes or activities were undertaken? • What was your role? 3. Do you say the studies conducted by the ILCA or the Technical Committee have aimed at paving ways to the use of Saho as an MOI? • Why? 4. How were IDA, the Irob Wereda Council, and the Regional state involved in LPP? • What other agencies or institutions were involved? • In what way? 5. What were the processes undertaken in the script development, and the decisions on the script choice? • What made the choice of the Ge’ez? • What about the implications of the use of the Latin Script for the Saho of Eritrea? 6. What are the linguistic and political implications of the use of two different scripts by the Saho speaking communities in Ethiopia and Eritrea? 7. The official letters by ILCA and the Irob Wereda council made requests for the use of Saho as an MOI. But,the implementation by the TRSEB put Saho as a subject. • What made these two bodies request so? • What made the TRSEB implement so? 8. Was/Is there any plan by the TRSEB to use the Saho language as an MOI? • Do you know of any activity or plan on this regard?

Appendix 20. Questionnaire I Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Officials Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray, Ethiopia.

154

Appendices

Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards,

Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 1. What is your feeling on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray! _______________________________________________________________ 2. Why has Tigrinya become an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ 3. Taking the Constitutional right of the other nationalities in Tigray, how do you see the use of Only Tigrinya for the non-Tigrinya nationalities’ children? _______________________________________________________________ 4. Have you participated in the Saho LPP held at Dowhan? YES ____ NO _____ If yes, what made you take part in the conference? _______________________________________________________________ • How did you find the Saho LPP conference? ____________________________________________________________ The studies conducted and presented in the conference ____________________________________________________________ The discussions on the Script choice ____________________________________________________________ The participants’ interest to use Saho as an MOI or as a subject ____________________________________________________________

Appendices

155

5. What made the TRSEB start Saho as a Subject rather than as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 6. What are the main problems or obstacles which led the TRSEB not to start Saho as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 7. Is/Was there any plan to make Saho start as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 8. In terms of the Irob nationality’s capacity, do you think the Saho community has the capacity to make start Saho as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 9. How was the regional administration/council involved on this regard? _______________________________________________________________ 10. Any point or issue you would like to express! Thank you!

Appendix 21. Questionnaire II Tigray Regional State Education Bureau Educators/ Curriculum Developers Who Took Part in the Post-1991 Tigrinya MOI Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards,

156

Appendices

Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 1. Why has Tigrinya become an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ 2. What are your experiences on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray! _______________________________________________________________ 3. Your feelings on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray! _______________________________________________________________ 4. What were the feelings towards the use of Tigrinya as an MOI by people (students, teachers, parents, etc.) who were used to Amharic as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 5. What were the key views reflected by those people? _______________________________________________________________ 6. What were the key problems encountered on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ 7. What solutions were devised in solving or addressing these problems? _______________________________________________________________ 8. What type of curriculum was used during the post-1991 primary education in Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ 9. What problems did you encounter in implementing and developing the Tigrinya medium curriculum? _______________________________________________________________ 10. Was there any training to teachers on the use of Tigrinya as an MOI? How? YES _________ NO _________ If your answer is yes, what type? _______________________________________________________________ How? _______________________________________________________________ Thank you!

Appendices

157

Appendix 22. Questionnaire III TPLF Founders and TPLF Historians Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards, Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 1. What are/were your feelings on the use of Amharic as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg periods! _______________________________________________________________ 2. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? _______________________________________________________________ Its effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language _______________________________________________________________ Peoples’ reaction: ________________________________________________ HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic _______________________________________________________________

158

Appendices

3. What made TPLF start an armed struggle? _______________________________________________________________ 4. Why was nationalism made the ideological foundation of the TPLF? _______________________________________________________________ 5. What strategies were employed by the TPLF to make to make the struggle have a nationalism oriented peoples‟ movement? _______________________________________________________________ 6. What was the key reason for the shift from TEHAHIT into HIWAHAT? _______________________________________________________________ 7. What made TPLF start Hara Meret Education? _______________________________________________________________ 8. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed multilingual policy? _______________________________________________________________ 9. What made TPLF start Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLF controlled areas of Tigray? ________ _______________________________________________ 10. What was the ideological or political role or meaning of the use Tigrinya as a working language and MOI of the TPLF movement? _______________________________________________________________ 11. Why was Tigrinya made to continue as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ Thank you!

Appendix 23. Questionnaire IV TPLF Members and Educators of the Pre-1991 Tigrinya Medium Education Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the Pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray,Ethiopia. Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards,

Appendices

159

Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 1. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? ________________________________________________________________ Its effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language ________________________________________________________________ Peoples’ reaction ________________________________________________________________ HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic ________________________________________________________________ 2. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed multilingual policy? ________________________________________________________________ 3. What made TPLF start Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLF controlled areas of Tigray? ________________________________________________________________ 4. What were the key problems encountered in using Tigrinya as an MOI? ________________________________________________________________ Orthographic problems _____________________________________________ Educated or trained teachers _________________________________________ Textbooks and other materials _______________________________________ 5. What was the political meaning of using Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991? ________________________________________________________________ 6. How do you see the use of only Tigrinya as an MOI in post-1991 Tigray? ________________________________________________________________ 7. What do you think would this mean or imply on the other nationalities? ________________________________________________________________ Thank you!

160

Appendices

Appendix 24. Questionnaire V Pre-1991 TPLF Education Department Head, TRSEB Head of Post-1991 TRSEB, and TGE/EPRDF Representative to the MOE during the TGE Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the Pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards, Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 8. Why was only Amharic used as an MOI during the Imperial and Derg Periods? _______________________________________________________________ Its effect on the Tigrayans and Tigrinya language_____________________ Peoples’ reaction_______________________________________________ HSIU student movement and the use of only Amharic _________________ 9. What made the TPLF start an armed struggle while the Derg had already proclaimed multilingual policy? _____________________________________ 10. What made TPLF start Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991 TPLF controlled areas of Tigray? ______________________________________________________

Appendices

161

11. What were the key problems encountered in using Tigrinya as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ Orthographic problems ____________________________________________ Educated or trained teachers ________________________________________ Textbooks and other materials ______________________________________ 12. What was the political meaning of using Tigrinya as an MOI in pre-1991? _______________________________________________________________ How about in post-1991 Tigray? ____________________________________ Why was Tigrinya used in post-1991 Tigray? __________________________ Peoples‟ feeling _________________________________________________ Problems encountered _____________________________________________ Solutions devised ________________________________________________ 13. As an EPRDF representative for the TGE-MOE, have you been involved in the TGE policy guideline development? 14. If yes, how were the five languages selected as MOI for the post-1991 primary education in Ethiopia? ____________________________________________ 15. Given the FDRE and Regional Constitutions, all nationalities have the right to use, develop and preserve their languages and cultures. But, in Tigray only Tigrinya has been made to continue as an MOI? Why? Thank you!

Appendix 25. Questionnaire VI Saho LPP Initiators and/or Community-Based Committee Members for the Saho LPP Introduction This questionnaire has two parts. The first part centers on issues pertaining to your bio-data. The second part deals with key Language Policy issues or activities that happened during the Pre-and post-1991 Language Policy and Practice contextual processes in Tigray, Ethiopia. Your committed and genuine response to the questionnaire will significantly contribute to the empirical and theoretical implications of the study. Hence, the researcher would like to express his appreciation and gratitude for your willingness to participate in this research. With Regards,

162

Appendices

Part I: Bio-Data Bio-data Name (if you are willing) Your first language Your ethnic identity (Tigrayan, Irob, or Kunama) Your educational status/level when you join the pre-1991 TPLF (if you were) Your role/position during the if were involved in pre-1991 TPLF Your current qualification/educational status Your current position in the TPLF (if a member of the post-1991 TPLF) Your current position in the regional administration/FDRE The language of education of your primary education

Responses

Part II: Language Policy and Practice Issues 11. How do you view Tigrinya as an MOI to all nationalities in Tigray? _______________________________________________________________ • In relation to FDRE and Regional Constitution ____________________________________________________________ • What effect do you see upon the Saho speaking children? ____________________________________________________________ 12. What made the Saho language community start to question for the use of Saho as an MOI? ___________________________________________________ • Who started it? ___________________________________________ • How? What processes or activities were undertaken? ____________________________________________________________ • What was your role? ______________________________________ 13. Do you say the studies conducted by ILCA or the Technical Committee have aimed at paving ways to the use of Saho as an MOI? _______________________________________________________________ 14. Why? _______________________________________________________________ 15. How were IDA, the Irob Wereda Council, the Regional state involved in the LPP? _______________________________________________________________ • What other agencies or institutions were involved? ____________________________________________________________ • In what way? ____________________________________________________________

Appendices

163

16. What were the processes undertaken in the script development, and the decisions on the script choice? _______________________________________________________________ • What made the choice of the Ge’ez? ____________________________________________________________ • What about the implication of the use of the Latin Script for the Saho of Eritrea? ____________________________________________________________ 17. What are the linguistic and political implications of the use of two different scripts by the Saho speaking communities in Ethiopia and Eritrea? _______________________________________________________________ 18. The official letters by ILCA and the Irob Wereda council made requests for the use of Saho as an MOI. But, the implementation by the TRSEB put Saho as a subject. • What made these two bodies request so? ____________________________________________________________ • What made the TRSEB implement so? Was/Is there any plan by the TRSEB to use the Saho language serve as an MOI? • Do you know any activity or plan on this regard? If so, what type and by whom?

Appendix 26. Structured Interview: Students and Teachers URBAN: ____ (X) RURAL: _____(X) STUDENT: ______ (X) TEACHER: ______(X). Grade Level: _______ Sex: _______ Age: ______________ Grade ___________________. Your Father’s Mother Tongue: __________ Your Mother’s Mother Tongue: _____________. Language you speak as a Mother Tongue: ____________ Your Ethnic Identity: _________. Only for Teachers: Subject you Teach: ______________ Your Qualification: ______________________.

164

Appendices

Language proficiency, MOI and script choice Language proficiency Saho Tigrinya Amharic Language choice as an MOI of PE Saho Tigrinya Amharic

1

2

3

1

2

3

Language practiced, preferred and expected

Domains for language use At home; e.g. with your family Outside your home; e.g. with neighbors In the school compound with students; e.g. outside classroom In the school compound with students and teachers outside class In the classroom with your students/ teachers (in the teaching and learning context) In the classroom with your classmates

Language ‘expected’ to use

Language ‘preferred’ to use

Language ‘actually use/practice’ often

Home language vs. school language Yes Is Saho only taught as a subject but not as a language to learn/teach other subjects? Is the language you learn other subjects different from your mother tongue? If it is different, do you encounter problems of understanding lessons in or expressing your ideas through the language of education? What alternatives or mechanisms do you employ in situations that you are in a difficulty of using the language of education? Anything you would like to add or ask?

No

Index

A Acquisition planning, 15, 100, 106, 107, 124, 125 Addis Ababa University (AAU), v, ix, xiii, 24, 32, 60 Administrative rationality, 14 Adwa Teacher Training Institute (Adwa TTI), 44, 79, 147 Afaan Oromoo/Afan Oromo language, 34, 35, 37, 38, 69, 101 Afar language, 9, 47, 48, 56, 71, 101 Agaw language agents, 9, 47, 48, 71 All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (AESOM), 66 Amda Seyon (Emperor, 1314–1344), 29 Amhara military conquest, 34 Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), 71 Amharic-based monolingual policies, 32 Amharic language, 35, 59, 76 Anglophone African countries, 35 Appropriation, 54–85, 105, 107, 108, 110–111, 119, 120, 122, 126, 128 Arabic language, 3, 4, 29, 31, 58, 143–145 Architecture of social behaviour, 1 Axumite period, 3

B Banking education, 18 Battle of Adowa, 4 Bottom-up policies/processes, 16–18, 68, 128 British Empire, 33 Broadcast Bill, 1993, 18

C Capacity, 73, 79, 90, 108, 109, 128, 141, 148, 155 Civil Rights movement in the United States, 18 Class struggle, 15 Colonial languages, 11 Communicative rationality, 13, 14 Community-based counter-hegemonic LPP, 98 Community-based LPP, 98, 124–126 Conference for Peace and Democracy, 1991, 33, 69 Conflict, 18, 19, 48, 53–85, 121 Constitutional monarchy, 5 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE, 1995), 6 Contemporary LPP theories, concepts, and research findings, 2 Corpus planning, 9, 15, 16, 100–101, 103, 106, 107, 121, 124, 125, 128 Counter-hegemonic policies and practices, xiii, 133 Counter-social stratification, 6, 133 Covert agendas, 16, 33, 117, 122, 132 Critical approach to language policy and planning, 12, 13, 131 Critical discourse, xiii, 46, 137 Critical discourse analysis (CDA), 39 Critical language policy (CLP), 5, 13–14, 17, 36, 38–41, 46, 130–132 Critical LPP theories, concepts, and research findings, 115 Critical theory, 12–13 Cultural Association of Tigray (CAT), 82, 140 Cushitic languages, 3, 101

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. A. G. Yohannes, Language Policy in Ethiopia, Language Policy 24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63904-4

165

166 D de facto language in education, 7, 88, 97 de facto regional MOI (medium of instruction), 88, 95 Derg (1974–1987), vi, 5–7, 9, 32, 33, 38, 55–58, 61–70, 75, 76, 78, 100, 110, 116, 117, 119, 121, 126, 150–152, 158–161 Document analysis, 42, 45, 77 Dominant ideologies, 40, 124 Dominant language, xiii, 4, 7, 55, 63, 68, 71, 82, 83, 97, 118, 123, 133 Dominated language, 1, 11 Dowhan General Conference, 103, 107, 140, 145–146 Dowhan Irob Community Conference, 23

E Economic rationality, 14 Empirical factors in LPP, 116 Empirical motives, vi, 116 Endangered languages, 14 Endowment Fund for Rehabilitation of Tigray (EFFORT), 81 English language, 99 Eritrea, 23, 31, 47, 48, 58–60, 81, 84, 87, 100, 101, 110, 138, 153, 163 Esperanto language, 36 Ethiopia, v–vii, ix, x, xiii, 3–10, 20, 22, 24, 29–41, 47, 48, 53–56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65–67, 69–74, 78, 81, 84, 87, 101, 102, 109, 113, 115–120, 122, 123, 126, 127, 130–133, 137, 138, 141, 143–145, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163 “Ethiopia First” motto, 62 Ethiopian Constitution 1955, 30 Ethiopian Orthodox church, 29 Ethiopian Peoples’ Democratic Movement, 71 Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), 6, 7, 33, 38, 44, 67–71, 77, 119, 147, 151–152, 160–162 Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP, 1974–1991), 56 Ethiopian Student Movement, 117, 119 Ethnographic research, xiii, 131 Ethnography-based research, 41 Ethnologue, 29 Evaluative Research of the General Education System of Ethiopia (ERGESE), 32 Explicit language policy and practices, 16, 117

Index F Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), 6, 43, 72–75, 108, 116, 117, 119, 121 Federal Ethiopia, 116, 118, 121 4-Matrix Model of language planning, 15 French language, 4, 30

G Gebru Asrat (key founder of the TPLF, President of Post-1991 Tigray), 58 Ge’ez language, 3 Ge’ez script, 33, 100–106, 143–146 Government’s Implementation Capacity Building, Strategies, and Programs, 72

H Haile-Sellassie (Emperor, 1930–1974), 4 Haile Selassie I University (HSIU), 60, 61, 65, 66, 69, 122, 150, 151, 158, 159, 161 Hara-Meret area, 9, 119, 123 Hara-Meret-based Teacher Training Center, 78, 79 Hara-Meret-based TPLF Education Department, 78 Hegemonic policies and practices, 7 Hegemony, 8, 13, 15, 30, 31, 39, 54–67, 76, 126 Hierarchies of power, 1, 40 Historical materialism ideology, 15 Historical phases/stages of language planning research, 11 Historical-structural approach to language policy and planning, 15

I Ideological factors in LPP, 116 Ideological motives, vi, 116 Ideology, vi, xi, xiii, 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16–18, 20–22, 32, 55–57, 60, 61, 65, 68–75, 79, 85, 87–113, 116–119, 121–125, 127, 129, 131, 141 Ideology as a locus of LPP, 130 Imperial Ministry of Pen (1933), 55 Imperial regime, vi, 32, 55, 62 Implicit language policy and practices, 16 Indigenous languages, 4, 5, 11, 14 Integrative Framework on LPP Goals, 106

Index Interest, vi, 4, 10–13, 32, 71, 73, 107–109, 111, 120, 126, 148, 154 International Human Rights Conventions, 72 International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), 100 Interviews, 23, 24, 42–46, 54, 76, 78, 87, 88, 97, 100, 104, 109, 110, 148–152 IPA-transcribed data, 100 Irob and Kunama Nationalities’ School Children, 84 Irob community, 23, 43, 85, 87–89, 99, 101–103, 105–111, 113, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 137, 145 Irob Cultural Association, 125 Irob Development Association (IDA), 87, 99, 102, 103, 107, 109, 112, 128, 140, 153, 163 Irob language, 43, 105, 106, 137, 139 Irob Language and Cultural Association (ILCA), 9, 44, 98, 99, 101–108, 112, 120, 127, 139, 143–145, 147, 153, 163, 164 Irob nationality, 47, 48, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96–111, 113, 119, 120, 139, 140, 143–146, 148, 155 “Irob Nationality’s Language Name”, 103 Irob Wereda, 23, 43, 45, 47, 85, 87–114, 124, 126, 147 Irob Wereda Council, 9, 45, 99, 101, 104–106, 112, 120, 139, 147, 153, 163, 164 Irob Wereda Information and Communication Office, 89, 128 Irob Wereda Information Office Head, 103 Italian language, 4, 30, 58

K Kunama language, 85 Kunama nationality, 8, 23, 46, 71, 73, 74, 77, 81, 83, 84, 107, 112

L Language as a dynamic system, 13 Language-based hegemonic policy and discrimination, 61 Language behaviour, 1 Language beliefs, 20 Language change, 12, 17 Language choice, 11, 71, 127, 164 Language codification, 11 Language ecology (language practices), vi, xiii, 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 34, 87–90, 94, 95, 109, 113, 115, 118, 121, 122, 126–128

167 Language expected, 42, 87, 93–96 Language Goals Integrative Approach to language policy and planning, 15 Language ideology (beliefs/attitudes), 20, 128 Language in education policy (LEP), 2 Language loyalty, 126 Language management (language planning), 1–24, 37, 40, 41, 100, 103, 116, 121, 125, 126, 128, 129 Language of instruction, 4, 5, 57, 58, 72, 73, 77, 97, 109, 111, 123–125 Language planners, 18 Language planning (language management), 1–24, 37, 40, 41, 100, 103, 116, 121, 125, 126, 128, 129 Language policies de facto, 7, 117, 118, 122, 124, 125, 127, 131, 132 de jure, 117, 118, 127, 131, 132 explicit, 3, 21, 40, 63, 117, 122, 129, 131 implicit, 3, 8, 13, 21, 40, 53, 117, 122, 124, 125, 129, 131 official, 3, 7–9, 20, 21, 40, 42, 53, 117, 118, 122–124, 127, 129 Language policy and planning (LPP), 2, 3, 5–24, 33, 34, 36–46, 48, 53–85, 98, 99, 102–108, 111, 115–133, 139, 145, 147, 148, 152–154, 162–164 Language policy and practices interplay, ix tension, vi, xiii, 3, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 40, 48, 104, 105, 107, 117–120, 124, 126–128, 133 Language practices, vi, xiii, 8, 16, 20, 21, 34, 87–90, 94, 95, 109, 113, 115, 118, 121, 122, 126, 127 Language practices (language ecology), vi, xiii, 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 34, 87–90, 94, 95, 109, 113, 115, 118, 121, 122, 126–128 Language preference, 95 Language processes, x, xiii, 2, 5, 7, 14, 17, 22, 36, 85, 133, 153, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162 Language proficiency rating, 92 Language shift, 14, 112 Language standardization, 11 Language status, 108, 110 Language used, 72, 95, 96 Latin language, 101, 104, 110, 143–145 Latin script, 33, 70, 100–102, 104, 144–146, 153, 163 Liberation Fronts in Eritrea (ELF and EPLF), 31

168 Linguistic diversity, 1, 6, 9, 81 Linguistic genocide, 14 Linguistic human rights, 1, 11, 23, 93 Linguistic imperialism, 14 Linguistic landscape, 45, 63, 64, 89 Linguistic repertoire, 20 Linguistic threat, 14 Literacy, v, ix, x, 16, 18, 32, 57, 58, 62, 66, 70, 100, 110, 143–145, 150–152 Local government policy agent, 106 Long Term Planning Committee, 1955, 4 LPP agent, 80, 82

M Macro-level federal official LPP formulation, 121 Macro-level processes and constructs, xiii, 133 Macrosociolinguistics, 10 Majority language, 10, 37, 42, 69, 112, 123 Marxist-Leninist ideology, 32 Marxist-Leninist propaganda, 57 Mechanisms, vi, xiii, 3, 8, 13, 15, 21, 22, 37, 39, 40, 59–61, 63, 68–75, 79–85, 98–105, 107, 108, 115, 118, 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 131, 133, 142 Medium of instruction (MOI), 9, 22, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 43, 54, 57–59, 61, 65, 67–73, 75–79, 83, 84, 87, 88, 91, 92, 96–98, 102, 104–112, 119–121, 125–127, 140, 148–164 Mekelle University, xv, 24, 84, 85, 89, 97–100, 110 Menelik II of Shoa, 1888–1910, 3 Mengistu Haile Mariam, 34 Meso-level processes and constructs, 10, 41, 127 Meso policy layer and agent, 41, 105, 118, 120 Micro-level processes and constructs, xiii, 133 Micro-level resistance-based LPP implementation, 121 Micro policy layer and agent, 120 Military junta, 5, 32 Ministry of Education (MOE), 6, 32, 43, 70, 141, 147, 151–152, 160–162 Minority language, 10, 43, 46, 54, 96, 97, 112, 123, 124, 126, 127 Modernization theory, 12 Monarchical education system, 4 Monolingual education policy, 33, 126 Monolingual language policy, 6, 35, 55, 56, 65, 96, 118, 121

Index Mother tongue, vi, 7, 29, 33–36, 48, 53, 55, 58, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 89–93, 95, 96, 98, 105, 106, 112, 116, 119, 121, 137, 147, 164 Mother tongue-based education, vi, 72, 78 Mother Tongue-based Multilingual Language in Education Policy, 68 Mother tongue education policy (MTEP), 33 Mother tongue instruction, 35, 69 Mother tongue movement, 18 Motives empirical, vi ideological, vi Multilingual context, 97 Multilingual education, v, vi, 6–8, 32, 33, 35, 137 Multilingual Education Policy, v, 6, 33, 35 Multilingualism, 1, 10, 14, 34, 36 Multilingual language policy, 6, 12, 36, 37, 54, 56, 57, 61, 68, 118 Multilingual policy for national unity and development, 37

N National Adult Literacy Program and Mass Literacy Campaign, 56 National integration, 4, 31, 34 Nationalism, 63, 66, 123, 150, 158 National language, 3, 57 National language policy, 32, 57 National Regional State of Tigray (NRST), 8, 22 National unity, 1, 6, 34, 35, 59 Nation-building ideology, 30, 33, 117, 122 New Education and Training Policy, 1994, 6, 33, 72, 78 Nilo-Saharan languages, 29 Non-Tigrinya Mother Tongue-Children, 84 “No-Policy Policy”, 115, 124

O Objectives and Directives of Education by the Ministry of Education, 57 Observation checklists, 43 classroom, 43, 95 community, 43 school, 43 Official language policy and practices, 21 Official languages, 55, 74

Index Omotic languages, 29 “One-Language One-Nation”, 56, 59 “One-Script One-Nation”, 57 Only-Amharic policy, 122, 123 Open-ended questionnaires, 42, 43 Oromia Regional State, 35 Oromo language, 29 Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Movement (OPDM), 70, 71, 119 Oromo People’s Liberation Front (OLF), 31, 68, 70, 119 Orthodox Christianity, 3 Orthography, vi, 6, 9, 79–81, 98–101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 120, 124, 139, 143–145 “Orthography for the Saho Language”, 103 “Our language and our religion”, 55 Overt agendas, 33, 122, 126

P Pagan languages, 55 Planned language change, 2, 12 Pluralism, xiii, 7, 8, 133 Policy explicit, vi, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 22, 39, 40, 43, 57, 60, 61, 95, 105, 112, 117, 118, 120, 122, 124, 129, 130 implicit, vi, 10, 14, 16, 17, 22, 39, 40, 43, 57, 61, 105, 112, 117, 118, 120, 122, 124, 129, 131 official, vi, xiii, 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 22, 29, 35, 40–42, 56, 59, 61, 65, 68, 71–73, 82, 95, 102, 108, 112, 113, 115, 117, 120–123, 126, 131, 133 Policy agency, 133 Policy agent, 2, 79, 105, 119 Policy Decisions on Languages of Education document, 1991, 6, 141 Policy-language management, 16 Policy making bottom up, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19, 22, 119, 120 top down, 14, 16, 19, 121 Policy-making levels, 21 Policy shift, 30 Positivist theory, 11–12, 120 Post-colonial countries, 11 Post-1974 Ethiopia, 116 Post-1991 Ethiopia, 5–7, 9, 22, 33, 37, 38, 68, 71, 116, 119, 121, 122, 130 Post-Revolution nationalities policy, 32 Pre-19th century Ethiopia, 53 Pre-1974 Ethiopia, 6 Pre-1991 Ethiopia, 30–32, 34, 54–67, 121

169 Primary school, 30, 57, 58, 67, 78, 97, 98, 102, 105, 107–110, 120 Proclamation on the Establishment of a Tigray Languages Academy (249/2006 EC), 112 Proclamation on Tigray Language Use for Various Functions/Domains (86/2007 EC), 112 Program of the National Democratic Revolution of Ethiopia (1976), 56, 141 Public signs, 63–65, 89

Q Qualitative research, xiii, 35, 37, 41 Quantitative research, 37 “Questions of Nationalities”, 57 “Questions of nations and nationalities”, 7, 61, 69, 74, 122

R Rational approach to language policy and planning, 40 Rational language policy, 17 READ Technical Assistance Project, ix “Real Language Policy”, 3, 115, 129 Regionally dominant language, 97 Regional macro policy layer and agent, 120 Regional majority, 9, 21, 112, 123, 127 Regional minority, 21, 54, 71, 82, 112, 126 Regional Minority Language Use, 111–113 Regional State Education Bureau, 118, 148, 149, 153–157 Regional State of Tigray, 7, 8, 22, 23, 41, 46, 68, 74, 75, 101, 119 Regional states, vi, 6, 7, 33, 35, 47, 74, 117, 118, 126 Relief Society of Tigray, 81 Resistance, xiii, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 21, 36, 37, 39, 48, 53–85, 97–104, 116, 118, 119, 121, 123, 125–127, 131, 133 Resistance language policies, xiii, 40 Resistance Language Policy Agencies, 68 Restrictive language policies, xiii Revolutionary manifesto, 62 Revolution of modernity, 13, 14 Roman Catholic Church, 48

S Saho-based mother tongue education, 120 Saho community elders, 99

170 Saho Corpus Study, 99 Saho language, vi, 9, 22, 23, 43, 54, 85, 88, 90–92, 96–111, 120, 121, 124–126, 128, 140, 143–146, 153, 163, 164 Saho language policy, 99, 102, 110 Saho language policy and planning, 99 Saho-medium primary school, 90 Saho orthography, 102–104, 140 Saho script, 100 Semitic languages, 3 Sidama (Sidamigna/Sidamuu Afoo) language, 29, 33, 56, 69–71 6-Matrix Model of language planning, 15 Social capital, 14 Socialist Ethiopia, 118, 120 Social stratification, 1, 5, 6, 37, 40, 93, 127, 132 Sociolinguistics, 5, 11 Sociolinguistic survey, 34, 38, 45, 87, 88 Sociopolitical contexts, 19, 21, 98, 118 Somali/Af-Somali language, 29, 31, 33, 48, 56, 70, 101 Somali Regional State of Ethiopia, 70 Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region (SNNPR), 35, 36, 38 South Ethiopia Peoples’ Democratic Movement (SEPDM), 71 Speech community, 15, 20 Status planning, 15, 16, 100, 106, 124, 125 Super-Optimal Language Planning (SOLP), 37, 39

T Teacher training institution (TTI), 44, 79, 147 Technical committee (TC), 99–102, 104, 111 Teferi Mekonnen, 4 Tekle Giyorgis II (Emperor, 1868–1871), 55 Tension, vi, 48, 53–86, 133 Tewodros II of Gondar (Emperor, 1855–1868), 3 Tigrayan people, 58–60, 62, 63, 66 “Tigrayan Nationalism”, 63, 66 Tigray Education Bureau (TEB), 78 Tigray Language Academy, 83, 84, 111, 112, 140 Tigray Languages Symposium, 84, 97 Tigray Liberation Front (TLF), 119 Tigray nationalism, 66, 123 Tigray Nationalism Movement, 63 Tigray Nationality, 9, 47, 112 Tigray National Organization (TNO), 31, 62, 63, 119

Index Tigray National Regional State (TNRS), 47, 73–75, 104, 107, 140, 141 Tigray National Regional State’s Parliament, 125 Tigray Nation with “Tegaru”/Tigray National Identity, 71 Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), 22, 31, 44, 45, 57–61, 63–69, 71, 72, 75–82, 116, 119, 121, 123–125, 138, 140, 141, 146, 149–152, 154, 156–162 Tigray Regional State, vi, 8–10, 20, 48, 71, 75, 106, 112, 117, 118, 121, 138, 148, 149, 153–157 Tigray Regional State Constitution, 74, 75 Tigray Regional State Education Bureau (TRSEB), 9, 44, 76, 78–80, 82, 85, 97, 103–111, 118, 120, 128, 147, 148, 151–153, 155, 160–162, 164 Tigray Regional State Justice Bureau, 102 Tigray Regional State People’s Council, 124 Tigray Regional State’s Language Proclamations on Regional Minority Language Use in Education and Other Domains, 111 Tigray region of Ethiopia, 5, 10, 29–49 Tigray Teacher’s Association, 84 Tigray Tourism and Culture Agency, 113 Tigray Trade and Industry Bureau, 113 Tigray University Students’ Association (TUSA), 57, 58, 60–62, 119 Tigrinya language, ix, 58–60, 65, 71, 76, 79–83, 85, 97, 98, 116, 124, 142, 150, 158, 159, 161 Tigrinya Language Academy, 80–83, 140, 142 Tigrinya Language Conference, 80 Tigrinya Language Symposium, 58, 80–84, 140, 142 Tigrinya-medium education, 78 Top-down policies/processes, 10, 36, 118, 121 TPLF/Hara-Meret Teacher Training Certificates, 78 TPLF resistance policy, 23 Transitional Charter, 69–72 Transitional Government of Ethiopia, 1991–1995, 6, 141 Tripartite language policy and planning theory, 21, 129, 130

U United Nations Education Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 138

Index United Nations Military for Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE), 48, 138 “Unity with Diversity”, 56, 116 Unpeeling the Onion framework, 19 Unplanned language change, 17 Unplanned language planning, 17

W Wereda Administration and the Regional Government, 102 Weyane, 66, 138 WOGAGODA language (WOlaitta, GAmo, GOfa, DAwro), 36

171 WOGAGODA language policy and planning, 36 WOGAGODA medium of instruction policy, 39 Wolaita language, ix, 29, 33, 56

Y Yohannes IV of Tigray (ruled 1871–1889), 3, 55, 64

Z Zagwe Dynasty, 3