At one level the question is a troubling one, particularly because to some African tribesmen the question
translates to: Are all tribes equal?
However the question does not find signification in the tribal wrangling of African tribesmen. It has been raised by many linguists previously. Recently it was raised by the Oxbridge, Professor John Honey who lectured at the University of Botswana briefly before his untimely death in 2001.
Honey was not raising a new matter. He was revisiting a matter which had been debated extensively by other linguists before such as Sir John Lyons, Prof. Dell Hymes, Benjamin Lee Whorf, J.E. Joseph, Laycock, Hugen, David Crystal, Halliday, McIntosh, Strevens, Trudgill, as well as my former Oxford professors: Jean Aitchison and Suzanne Romaine. The phenomenon in linguistic terms is called linguistic equality. To the questions raised above, the answer is a resounding NO.
Languages are not equal firstly on the basis of their vocabulary size. Some languages have close to a million words while others are only but a few thousand words. The existence of a word in the vocabulary greatly facilitates a speaker’s use of the concept to which the word refers, both for the speaker’s use and for communicating the concept with others. Those who argue for linguistic equality have insisted that speakers of any language can ‘discuss any aspect of their community they wish’. However as Honey has demonstrated, such statements presuppose a static community, and fails to address situations in which such members have to step outside the intellectual bounds of their community.
Certain languages lack complexity of direction and distance. They are unable to express precise distance in their local languages except using vague and general terms such as “very far”, “near-by”, “the other side of the hill”, “the other side of the river” and others. Their language also fails to cope with elementary mathematics and science and many aspects of the modern world without a wholesale infusion of foreign words. Such languages also fail to make a distinction between cardinals and ordinals. Others argue that languages can quickly borrow from other languages to respond to modern demands of accuracy and precision. That indeed sounds attractive, but language takes hundreds of years to adapt, unlike Haugen’s claim that the change is quick.
Languages are also not equal on the basis of the number of speakers. By number of speakers we are not here referring to mother tongue speakers only; otherwise such an assumption would make English a minority language in countries such as South Africa where it is used as a de facto official language. Those who qualify as speakers of a language include everyone competent enough to speak and comprehend the language and not just mother tongue speakers of the said language; otherwise we will exclude a large number of speakers. The same is true for Setswana. Its speakers are not just its mother tongue speakers. For some Setswana is a second or even a third language; but we must not deny reality ÔÇô they are still Setswana speakers, although Setswana is not their mother tongue. Some languages are therefore spoken by large number of people sometimes across the different national borders. The inequality on the basis of number of speakers extends to minority languages as well. For instance Kalanga is more elevated than Seherero or San languages because it is spoken by a larger number of speakers in comparison. Therefore not all minority languages are equal.
Languages are also not equal on the basis of their function. The functional role, more than anything else determines a language’s importance. It is on the basis of the functional role that the educational and economic value of a language and its use in multiple domains such as media, legal, parliament or classroom is determined.
For instance in the UN, the dominant languages are English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. These languages are internationally spread across multiple continents. They are used in many official documents, movies, music, and films. They are mediums of instructions in multiple universities and secondary schools. They are world mega-languages. Africa also has its mega languages such as Zulu and Swahili. Other languages such as Setswana are also important because of their cross-border status. That is why they have been chosen by the African Union as languages which can facilitate inter-national communication since they are spoken in multiple countries. The AU has therefore earmarked Setswana for promotion and development. Functionally it is taught as a subject in all government schools and used in the customary court. Textbooks, grammar books, literature, Bible, dictionaries, radio and tv programs are in Setswana.
Setswana cannot be equated with many minority languages because of its elevated functional role. Additionally, Setswana is not on par with English or Zulu since English is far much elevated both nationally and internationally and Zulu is a mega language.
I have raised the subject of linguistic equality here which is obviously divisive mainly because we all wish our own language to be the dominant one. However the fact of the matters is, regardless of how much contestation there might be; linguistic equality will remain a glorious ideal ÔÇô and never a reality.
