GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
Languages and literacies
— a commissioned study for the 2006 EFA Global Monitoring Report —
January 2005
Clinton Robinson
Consultant
The international community has long recognised that language issues are central to the
organisation and delivery of education of all kinds. The countries of the world manifest
varying degrees of linguistic diversity, a reality that has become ever more widespread
with the increasing mobility of populations. International declarations have gone beyond
merely recognising language issues and have called for serious attention to be given to
designing educational, cultural and, more broadly, development policies which enable
people to make maximum use of the language resources at their disposal. In practice,
this has most frequently entailed a plea for the effective integration of both local and
international languages in learning programmes, as documented in UNESCO’s
presentation of principles for education in a multilingual world (UNESCO 2003).
The Dakar Framework for Action in its expanded commentary includes ‘the importance
of local languages for initial literacy’ as one of the factors of effective and inclusive
education and refers repeatedly to the special needs of ethnic and linguistic minorities.
Language is also seen as a factor in developing relevant curriculum, in ensuring quality
learning and in respecting cultural identities. In the EFA movement, therefore, the case
is clearly made for adequate consideration to be given to language issues in realising
the Dakar goals. However, these intentions may or may not be reflected in national
policy statements and are even more rarely translated into effective multilingual
strategies in education on the ground. Where policies regarding the use of languages in
education are spelled out, the emphasis is always on the context of formal schooling, as
a national system. While different parameters apply in making decisions about adult
literacy work, it is nevertheless a further sign of the relative neglect of adult literacy at
both policy and implementation levels that the questions of language use in literacy
promotion are not systematically addressed.
I take a plural view of literacy – ‘literacies’, as indicated in the title of the paper. This
concept, whose dimensions cannot be explored here, defines literacy as embedded in
context and focuses on the different practices and uses of literacy. In consequence,
literacy takes a different shape in different communities and individuals, and indeed a
single individual may use a range of literacies. With regard to languages, the plural view
of literacy is crucial, since language itself is a factor which distinguishes one literacy from
another, along with other factors such as mode of acquisition, institutional uses of
literacy, the purposes and modalities of literacy. The generic use of the singular term
‘literacy’ in this paper in no way detracts from this fundamentally plural view. The notion
of ‘literacies’ is well developed by Street (1995, 2001), Barton and Hamilton (1998) and
Collins and Blot (2003), among others.
This paper will look at the shape of language issues as they arise in adult literacy work
and will present some examples of how literacy acquisition is structured in a variety of
multilingual environments in different regions of the world. While I will refer necessarily to
language policies in the school context, the focus is firmly on adult literacy and the
language issues involved in pursuing the fourth EFA goal on increasing literacy rates.
1
Where languages matter for literacy
Literacy needs are distributed unevenly across the world with South and West Asia
accounting for more than half of the world’s non-literate population. Taken with SubSaharan Africa and the Arab region, this proportion rises to more than three-quarters
(UNESCO 2004). In terms of languages, it is important to ask how far large literacy
1
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
needs are related to levels of linguistic diversity and of language development.
Language development refers to the current state of written development of a language
– how far it is used in written form, what opportunities for literacy in the language exist
and what kinds and amounts of text exist, in whatever form – printed, electronic, etc.
The language situations of countries with the highest literacy needs are very different.
Taking the nine countries listed in the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report as accounting
for the highest proportion of literacy needs, and the five countries with the lowest literacy
rates, the numbers of languages are as follows:
Country
Percentage of
world nonliterate
population
Adult
literacy rate
Number of
languages
Nine countries = 70.3% of world non-literate population
India
33.8
81.3
387
China
11.2
90.9
201
Bangladesh
6.5
41.1
38
Pakistan
6.4
41.5
69
Nigeria
2.8
66.8
505
Ethiopia
2.7
41.5
82
Egypt
2.6
55.6
10
Indonesia
2.3
87.9
726
Brazil
1.9
88.2
192
Five countries with lowest adult literacy rates
Benin
39.8
51
Senegal
39.3
36
Mali
19.0
40
Niger
17.1
20
Burkina Faso
12.8
66
Sources: Grimes 2000; UNESCO 2004
These data indicate only at a very coarse level of analysis the relationship between
literacy and linguistic diversity, showing merely that all these countries are linguistically
diverse, but that this diversity varies greatly from one country to another. Nevertheless,
even such basic facts may be ignored in discussions about literacy promotion, with
language questions relegated to the level of implementation, rather than figuring in policy
and planning fora.
In the above table, for instance, over 95% of the Brazilian population speak Portuguese,
with the other languages of Brazil spoken by small and very small groups of indigenous
peoples. Some of China’s minorities number in the millions, although the Mandarinspeaking Han population represents 70% of the population. Much of the linguistic
diversity of Indonesia is concentrated in three provinces – Irian Jaya (263 languages),
Sulawesi (114), and Maluku (128). In Bangladesh, 98% of the population speaks Bangla,
the national language. These observations do not minimise the importance of language
diversity, but rather call for a more detailed analysis of each situation.
2
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
We should also guard against seeing the linguistic diversity of the five countries with the
lowest literacy rates as a cause for their plight. Rather, the high linguistic diversity should
be a reason for looking seriously at language as a material consideration in ensuring
wider access to literacy and higher levels of acquisition and use. In other words,
linguistic diversity should not be seen as an insuperable problem, but as a key factor in
designing intervention in literacy and other areas of development. It is not unknown for
linguistic diversity to be lauded as an important and valuable manifestation of cultural
diversity, while being described in the same context as an impossible problem in terms
of educational usage.
If data such as those in the above chart are to be of real use in understanding the
situation with regard to literacy and languages then a range of other questions must be
answered:

What proportion of the population can be considered as linguistic minorities?
This will identify how much of population are potentially marginalised from
literacy opportunities because of language. Literacy opportunities include the
possibility not only of acquiring literacy, but also of using it in meaningful ways
in society.

In how many languages are literacy opportunities available? What proportion
of the population has access to literacy acquisition in their own language, the
mother tongue?

What proportion of the population uses a major language in which literacy is
available? Further, what proportion of those who access literacy through a
major language are mother-tongue speakers of it, and what proportion use it
as a second (or third…) language?
This kind of fine-grained analysis is rarely undertaken, and so data are hardly available
to provide answers to these questions. While statistics are available for the population of
minority linguistic groups, data on literacy rates within those groups are difficult to obtain,
let alone a breakdown by the language of literacy. The fourteenth edition of the
Ethnologue (Grimes 2000), a listing of the world’s languages which aims to be complete,
attempts to show literacy rates for a number of minority groups. Information is given in
some cases on the literacy rate in their own mother tongue, together with the rate of
literacy in a second language, such as an official or national language. The data are
patchy and there is no indication how they were collected or whether further research
will result in more accurate data or data for a wider range of populations. However, it is a
research undertaking which is urgent and would shed considerable light on the real
levels of access to and use of literacy among linguistic minorities and indigenous
peoples.
Interestingly, the few data that the Ethnologue provides indicate that literacy rates in the
mother tongue are equal to or, more commonly, lower than those in a second language.
Data for both rates are given for very few languages, of which the following serve as
examples from different regions of the world:
Language
Amele, Papua New
Guinea
Population
Literacy rate in
own language
Literacy rate in
second language
5,300
75-100%
75-100%
300,000
10-30%
25-50%
East Makian,
Indonesia (Maluku)
20,000
below 1%
25-50%
Popoloca (San Juan
Atzingo), Mexico
5,000
20%
30%
Berom, Nigeria
3
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
Saraiki, India
59,640
below 1%
15%
Source: Grimes 2000
The first example, Amele, gives strong indication that a fully bilingual approach to
literacy acquisition has been implemented and has been, thus far, effective. This
represents the kind of result which gives best opportunity to minority groups: mother
tongue literacy for initial learning, cognitive development, self-expression and cultural
self-confidence, and second language literacy for participation and voice in the wider
society. The other examples could be interpreted in radically divergent ways:

The first interpretation, noting that second language literacy rates are so much
higher, would claim that literacy in the second language is more effective,
more feasible and more in demand than mother tongue literacy, with the
implication that the latter is an unnecessary investment, and efforts should be
made to reinforce the learning of the second language and the acquisition of
literacy in it;

The second interpretation, also noting that second language literacy rates are
higher, but still low, and observing that mother tongue literacy rates are very
low indeed, would conclude that opportunities for mother tongue literacy are
inadequate and that it is difficult therefore for widespread literacy to develop in
the second language.
In order to assess which of these interpretations provides the best basis for further
promotion of literacy, it would be necessary to carry out surveys of language use,
bilingualism, the literate environment, and attitudes to language and literacy in the
respective communities. It is precisely because such studies are hardly ever undertaken
that inappropriate policies and ineffective strategies give rise to a succession of literacy
initiatives which fail to take root or offer real opportunities of development.
According to Walter (forthcoming) the 4,500 linguistic communities of the world which
have a population of less than 50,000 represent some 53.38 million people; these are
the smallest linguistic groups of which several in the above table are examples. Walter
comes to a similar conclusion about their prospects of access to literacy and education:
From the perspective of literacy and education, this cluster of linguistic
communities—some 53.38 million people—represents a compelling
challenge. Realistically, apart from occasional exceptional efforts, most of
these people will either be expected to achieve literacy in a second language
or will be by-passed as “unreachable” given the cost of providing special
programs for such small people groups. In either case, high levels of
illiteracy will be the norm for such linguistic communities for the forseeable
future. (Walter, forthcoming: 19)
Walter’s detailed analysis of literacy rates in relation to languages focuses on the status
of the languages concerned. In very general terms, his work shows that lower literacy
rates are not associated with linguistic diversity as such, but with the level of
development of each language. Where a higher proportion of the population of a country
speaks undeveloped languages (for instance, without an agreed writing system) there
are lower literacy levels. Walter is quick to point to anomalies and exceptions to this
observation, emphasising that literacy rates depend on much more than language
issues. These are one of a number of variables, which include policy issues and cultural
questions. We now turn to these.
2
Language policies and literacy
As Ager (2001) points out, language policy formulation is most frequently examined at
the level of the nation-state in respect of the way that governments structure the use of
languages within their borders. This results in giving languages a certain status, for
instance as a national language, an official language, a provincial language or some
4
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
other category. Policies are designed so that languages will be recognised as having a
certain prestige or reach, that they will be used in certain ways (for instance in
government administration or education) and that they will be learnt by certain groups of
people, often with the intention that the whole population acquires a particular language.
2.1 Policies in multilingual environments
Government policies in multilingual environments give differential status to languages,
most often based on how extensively they are spoken. Thus in India, Hindi and English
have national status, while fourteen other languages are given recognition at state level.
This means that schooling is dispensed in those languages in the relevant areas, and
that there is demand for literacy in them too. However, there are many more languages,
including tribal languages. These are recognised as valid means of communication and
learning and are given moral recognition, but no official support for their development or
use in education. In terms of literacy acquisition, therefore, their use depends on local
organisations and initiatives, as well as on community demand and support.
In countries with large numbers of smaller language groups, such as Cameroon (over
250 languages) and Papua New Guinea (about 850 languages), all languages are
recognised but levels of support are very different. In Cameroon, the government’s
policy is that local languages can and should be used for initial schooling, but no attempt
has yet been made to move towards implementation (there are some limited NGO
initiatives), and the government’s literacy efforts, minimal as they are, are conducted
entirely in French or English, the official languages. It is only since the adoption of a new
national constitution in 1995 that Cameroon has made official mention of its many
‘national’ (= indigenous) languages. Papua New Guinea evinces the boldest of any
policy regarding language in education, with the possibility of using any of its many
languages in primary schooling, given certain kinds of community support, for instance in
the preparation of materials. Once again, this policy was developed for formal schooling
specifically, not with adult literacy necessarily in mind.
Nigeria (505 languages) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (218 languages) are in a
different situation again, with strong regional languages: Hausa, Yoruba and Igbo in
Nigeria, and Lingala, Kiswahili, Kikongo and Ciluba in DRC. These are used, and
promoted, as extensive lingua francas and are used in education, albeit somewhat
patchily in DRC owing to collapsed systems (see also below 4.3). Other local languages
may be used in education and literacy – policies allow for this – but in practice little or no
support is given to such initiatives, which depend on community or NGO resources.
In practice, therefore, policies in multilingual situations tend to give status to a certain
number of languages, but not all of them. Policies may specifically address the
educational use of languages, as in PNG where there is still no explicit overall language
policy. PNG is one of the few countries where the use of all languages is encouraged in
education and it is certainly the most egregious example of policy-making, given the
extremely high number of languages within its borders. Even where policies allow for the
use of minority and smaller languages in education, such as in India, Nigeria or
Cameroon, there is rarely any government support either in formal education or in
literacy.
2.2 Colonial overhang
The former colonial polices of France and Britain had distinctive kinds of influence on the
use of African languages (Brock-Utne 2000). The British approach of indirect rule led to
a much greater space for local languages and their use was part of the relationship
between colonial administrators and local people – special allowances were given to
colonial officials who learnt local languages. The use of languages in education
nevertheless fluctuated considerably over the years, but the policy allowed for adult
literacy work using both African languages and English. This has resulted, for example,
5
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
in university departments and research institutes focusing on adult learning, where
language questions have been of long-term concern (eg Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone).
The policies of French colonial authorities were quite different, with a concern to
integrate colonial possessions into metropolitan governance structures and to promote
French culture and language. French took a strong hold in the coastal West African
states, such that, in many of them, it was only in the 1980s and 1990s that policies
began to recognise African languages as valid vehicles of education. Government adult
literacy programmes were overwhelmingly in French. In the Sahelian states, French was
less well known, and so local languages had greater space, both in formal and nonformal learning; Senegal, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso have, for instance, demonstrated
high levels of innovation and experimentation in local language literacy (Brock-Utne
2000; Chaudenson and Renard 1999; Dombrowsky et al. 1993).
2.3
NGOs and language policies
A focus on government language policy obscures the fact that much adult literacy work
is conducted by non-governmental organisations, from local community-based
groupings, religious organisations, development associations, to international NGOs. In
many multilingual countries, such as Papua New Guinea, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and
Peru, NGOs carry out the bulk of adult literacy efforts, and for the most part adopt
multilingual approaches, beginning with literacy instruction through the local language
and moving to the learning of a language of wider communication. Experiences of
national NGOs in Cameroon, Uganda and Ghana are presented in section 4 below, as
well as the work of a regional NGO in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The
contrasting approaches of two international NGOs are presented here: ActionAid and
SIL International.
ActionAid is a network of affiliated NGOs which undertakes a wide range of development
activities. Adult literacy has figured prominently in its work, and it developed the Reflect
literacy method (Archer and Cottingham 1996a). Its basic approach is to put the learning
process in the hands of learners themselves, avoiding the prior preparation of materials
or the use of instructional primers. With a strong emphasis on a facilitated group
process, learners discuss their knowledge of health, economic, social and other aspects
of their community’s life, representing the output in charts and diagrams, often drawn on
the ground. The literacy component consists of identifying key words, each learner
writing them in their own books and collectively on charts, the idea being to create
learning materials as they go along. Initial studies showed good learning outcomes as
well as heightened community mobilisation (Archer and Cottingham 1996b). The Reflect
method calls for free discussion among learners, and this occurs in the mother tongue. It
is therefore this language which is used for initial literacy. In the Ugandan experience,
the languages used were not written in the first instance and the Reflect process
contributed to their development and to their possible use in formal education. This
grassroots approach contrasts with governmental approaches and the top-down national
literacy campaigns of the past. In language terms it builds on the way communities
actually use languages and patterns learning accordingly. However, where the
languages used are in an early form of written development, the question of developing
the literate environment and producing ongoing materials remains to be answered.1
SIL International is an NGO which has initiated literacy and language development
projects in hundreds of minority and indigenous groups around the world, based on a
religious motivation of translating the Christian scriptures. In literacy, partnerships with
government, other NGOs and communities have led to literacy programmes in
languages hitherto unwritten (SIL 2003). Typically, the development of a language in
1
The Reflect methodology has since evolved into a more general approach to communication in
the context of societal power relations, where literacy may be one strategy of development
(Archer and Newman 2003).
6
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
written form, based on linguistic studies, is followed by the preparation of literacy primers
in collaboration with local knowledge-makers/story-tellers/writers. These books are often
the first to be produced in the language concerned, and little else may be available as
people start acquiring literacy. Since many of the language groups where SIL projects
take place are small, there is always a need for literacy in other languages; such
instruction may be offered by the project itself or through other agencies. SIL’s approach
gives pride of place to the local language and emphasises its development in written
form. As a linguistic, research-based exercise it is effective in enabling literacy and a
literate environment to develop in languages otherwise neglected; however, it is less
effective in integrating the resulting literacy use into the daily lives and concerns of
individuals and communities. Although writing and the production of materials is in focus
from the start, there is inadequate investment in identifying and reinforcing domains of
literacy use. Such a heavy emphasis on the mother tongue, however necessary in
situations of massive neglect, risks obscuring the absolute necessity of multilingual
approaches to literacy for such groups.
2.4 A language policy for literacy?
In terms of policy-making, these NGO experiences, together with those in section 4,
contrast greatly with government approaches. While the NGOs would not perhaps claim
to be making policy, the reach and impact of both the international NGOs referred to
above results in de facto policies on the ground, with influence on what governments find
feasible and desirable. Further, a fundamental question with regard to language policies
and literacy must be asked: how far do official language policies matter for the promotion
of literacy acquisition among adults? There are several elements of response:

Governments rarely articulate or promote any explicit policy with respect to the
choice/use of languages in adult literacy work specifically, even if there are
policies on language in education or in national life generally;

Official language policies affect demand for literacy in certain languages, as
people wish to take part and have voice in national society through, for
example, the official language; this demand does not, however, necessarily
reduce demand for literacy in the local language – both demands must be
addressed;

Where language policies favour the use of local languages and a multilingual
approach in formal schooling, it is easier to adopt similar approaches in adult
literacy, strengthening ties between school and community, and between
formal and non-formal learning;

There is a recognition, most frequently tacit, that adults should be able to
influence the choice of language in which they acquire literacy; this means that
even in countries where policies strongly promote an official or national
language, there is the possibility for adults to acquire literacy in their own
languages as well, if they wish and have the means to do so;

There are situations where language policy outlaws the development or
educational use of minority languages in any way, thus obliging such groups to
learn another language for literacy purposes.
Kosonen’s study (2005) of language policies and situations in education in east and
southeast Asia is one of the few that presents data on language use in both formal and
non-formal education – non-formal education includes both adult learning and primary
level equivalency programmes. His survey of eleven countries shows that eight of them
use local languages, thus a multilingual approach, in adult education – this is the same
number as use local languages in the formal system, at least to some extent. He also
notes that adult education is conducted principally by non-governmental bodies in five of
the eight countries. This speaks for a strong correlation between government policies
7
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
regarding formal schooling and the grassroots activities of NGOs and communities, in
terms of approaches to selecting the languages of learning.
3
Languages, literacy and culture
Approaches to literacy in developing countries are overwhelmingly instrumental – the
focus is on how literacy and its acquisition will enable people to achieve improvements in
their lives, defined in terms of socio-economic progress and better personal and family
health. These sorts of aims underlie the functional approach to literacy. In this
perspective, language is also considered from an instrumental point of view: which
language(s) will best enable people to access literacy and the knowledge, skills and
behaviours leading to positive change? These approaches and perspectives are
fundamental to development and to a rationale for the value of literacy within it. They
also emphasise the key communicative role of language and, depending on how finegrained the analysis of context is, give due consideration to the complexities of choosing
languages for literacy.
A focus on the functional value of literacy, with a corresponding emphasis on the
communicative role of language, risks ignoring two key aspects: the cultural value of
literacy and the symbolic function of language. Language has long been part of nation
building, particularly in situations of high diversity where the promotion of a single
language has been seen as a key symbolic means of national unity (Mansour 1993).
However, such use of language as a symbol in the national political sphere can conflict
with the affirmation of local, especially minority identities. In this respect, the language of
literacy can exercise an important cultural function.
Literacy among the linguistic and cultural minorities of Myanmar has been promoted by
various agencies, both in the national language, Burmese, as well as in the minority
languages themselves, the latter entirely through non-governmental initiatives. Literacy
among these groups is lower than among the Burmese-speaking population and there
are very few materials available in the local languages. A survey in 2004 of the
development and use of rural development information materials in local languages
among the minorities showed that the newly produced development guides would
certainly fulfil their functional role of generating new ideas, discussion and initiative
within local communities. However, adults in these groups also consistently mentioned
the cultural importance of having literature in their own language – the report states:
The production process and use of guides have considerably raised people’s
perceptions of the value of their own culture and language, and lifted
expectations of how they fit into the process of local development. This
impact cannot be overstated for communities which have long laboured
under the illusion that their language and culture are second-rate and
incapable of shaping the modern world. (Tearfund 2004: 27)
The link between the language of literacy and cultural identity is particularly important for
minorities who are, or feel themselves to be, outside the social mainstream and who are
constantly obliged to operate on someone else’s linguistic terms. Language is one of the
most obvious markers of cultural identity and frequently becomes the symbol and
rallying cry of embattled cultural minorities. In many countries, it is the mainstream
populations or elites assimilated to the mainstream who make decisions on language
use in literacy and education. Although they may be sensitive to instrumental arguments
regarding the use of minority languages for development purposes, it is rare that they
will appreciate – much less act on – the symbolic and cultural value of literacy in the
local language. There is in fact a disconnect in policy-making at this juncture, since
linguistic diversity may well be lauded as part of the cultural heritage, but little or no effort
made to draw out the implications for education or development (Robinson 1996). This is
all the more inauspicious as the cultural basis for development is increasingly viewed as
crucial in empowering communities to initiate and sustain positive change (cf Eade 2002;
WCCD 1995).
8
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
4
4.1
Language strategies in literacy
Uganda – decentralised decisions on language
The adult literacy rate in Uganda is 68.9% (male 78.8, female 59.2 – UNESCO 2004).
The Ugandan government estimates that there are 6.9 million adults without literacy
skills. There are wide regional disparities, with literacy rates as low as 47% in northern
regions, and as high as 77% in central districts. More than 40 languages are spoken
(Grimes 2000), and English is the official language. The largest language group,
speaking Luganda, accounts for less than 20% of the total population. Efforts to address
adult literacy must therefore take seriously the question of which language(s) people
should use for literacy purposes, both in initial acquisition and in ongoing application.
Since 1992, Uganda’s policy on the use of languages in education has been that local
languages should be used for initial literacy, both for children (at least the first four years
of primary school, and up to seven) and for adults. For schooling, six languages were
chosen at national level, but districts had the freedom to develop and use others. They
were to set up District Language Boards, though it is doubtful whether any actually exist.
Schooling also aims at competence in English, and demand from adults for literacy in
English is strong. However this does not mean that literacy is necessarily offered
through English in the first instance.
In many multilingual situations in Africa, planners often present language choices as
either-or alternatives: either literacy in the local language or in the official language. The
educational argument for using first the language which the learner knows best is
frequently lost. This is not the case in Uganda, even though reference to language use is
minimal in the government’s published literacy policy (National Adult Literacy Strategic
Investment Plan 2002), with a recommendation that literacy providers should “develop
simple reading materials in English and local languages” (p.17). Decentralised
government initiatives, often with NGO cooperation and input, focus on initial literacy
instruction through the language of the learner, with progression to English once basic
literacy competence has been achieved (EAI 2003). This separates the two quite distinct
learning objectives: acquiring literacy, and learning a foreign language. The national
literacy plan has not yet been implemented in a systematic way, but this may,
paradoxically, have resulted in more appropriate, localised approaches to the use of
Uganda’s languages in literacy learning.
4.2
Bhutan – language as a national rallying point
Bhutan, a small, landlocked country of 700,000 inhabitants wedged between the giants
of China and India, demonstrates a vigorous pride in its distinct cultural heritage and
national traditions. As it has sought to interact to a greater extent with the outside world
over the last decades, education has been a key plank of its development policy. Since
1993 the government has run an adult literacy programme under its Non-formal
Education Department to reach those who are unschooled or under-schooled; it has
offered literacy instruction in Dzongkha, the national language, which is written in a
Devanagari-derived script. The medium of instruction in the formal school system is
English, with an emphasis also on a high level of literacy and other language skills in
Dzongkha, which is promoted as part of national identity and culture.
Bhutan is, however, linguistically diverse with over 20 different languages (Namgyel
2003). Dzongkha is the only Bhutanese language which is used in written form and
supported with government resources, being seen as a factor of national unity and a key
marker of national identity. Non-formal learning programmes are currently all conducted
in Dzongkha. The other languages of Bhutan are used in oral form, and some are
closely related to Dzongkha – being from the same language family – while others are
quite different. These languages are the daily means of communication for the groups
speaking them, and not all have yet learnt Dzongkha. In 2003 the Bhutanese
government estimated the adult literacy rate to be about 54% (Bhutan Ministry of Health
9
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
and Education 2003), and noted that the ‘difficult mountain terrain, limited
communication links and a dispersed pattern of settlement’ were some of the reasons for
lack of access to education. Given that these same, rather inaccessible communities
also speak languages other than the national medium of instruction, the linguistic issue
merits further analysis.
These different languages are part of the rich cultural diversity of Bhutan, and their
development in written form may at some point take place – there is no restriction on
such activities, although communities are not currently promoting their languages in this
way. Nevertheless, for the purposes both of effective learning and cultural expression,
the possibility of using these community languages in some more structured way in the
future should not be ruled out, as part of the multilingual practices which already exist
and which include Dzongkha and English, and as further development of Bhutan’s
cultural heritage.
4.3
Democratic Republic of Congo – a multilingual approach
In the north-west of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a local NGO, Sukisa
Boyinga (Conquer ignorance), built on adult literacy work which began in the 1980s
(Gfeller 1997). Centred around the town of Gemena, the majority of the population
speaks Ngbaka, numbering over 2 million speakers. Other languages, such as Ngbandi
and Mbandja, are also spoken in the area. DRC has a total of over 200 languages, of
which four serve as regional lingua francas: Lingala, Kikongo, Kiswahili and Ciluba. In
the Gemena region Lingala is the language used for communication between different
language groups; in addition, French, the official language, is used for administrative and
government purposes. From the start, Sukisa Boyinga launched literacy activities based
on the mother tongue, Ngbaka, but gave attention to the full range of languages which
people use in their daily lives. Thus the programme also introduced literacy in Lingala
and French, through the medium of the learners’ first language.
The initial aims of the programme were basic literacy in Ngbaka and Lingala, with an
introduction to oral French. This was structured in three levels:
Level 1: initial literacy and numeracy training in the local language. At this stage
knowledge is applied to everyday life by reading a health book after the basic
skills have been taught.
Level 2: basic complementary training to reinforce level 1, and a first introduction to
literacy in Lingala. A reader of local folk stories is also used.
Level 3: applied local language literacy; topics include animal husbandry, agriculture and
elementary book-keeping; more advanced training in Lingala; initial oral French,
with an emphasis on its use in practical everyday situations; further arithmetic.
These literacy, numeracy and language-learning goals were later expanded, at learners’
insistence, to a full adult education programme which would offer the equivalent of
primary schooling. The gradual deterioration and eventual collapse of the government
schooling system meant that very few adults had completed primary school – in the mid1990s about 90% of adults in this region did not have a primary school leaving certificate
(Robinson and Gfeller 1997). The Sukisa Boyinga programme therefore offered the only
opportunity for structured learning in the region. A further three levels were added to the
programme, using Ngbaka as the medium of instruction and increasing skills in the other
two languages:
Level 4: further Lingala reading; French grammar; geography from a local perspective;
further arithmetic.
Level 5: further Lingala reading; further French training; history from a local perspective;
further arithmetic.
Level 6: French training to cover the remaining areas of the DRC national primary school
curriculum; political systems of the world; creative writing.
10
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
By 2000, a total of 46,400 adults were enrolled in this programme, with over 2,500
trained facilitators. In addition, the first three levels of the programme were adapted for
children’s schooling, with 6,000 children attending 50 primary schools and 12 community
schools (SIL 2001).
Apart from the fact that this initiative filled a gap left by the collapse over many years of
the regular school system, the extent and the effectiveness of this programme have a
clear linguistic dimension. In this region of DRC, people habitually need to use, and do in
fact use, three languages: their own for all purposes of daily communication among their
own families and villages, a regional language for wider contact and travelling further
afield, and the official language for contact with the government. In practice, the local
language is the most widely used, Lingala is known and used to varying degrees
depending on individual needs and circumstances, while French, the official language, is
known and used by only a few. Desire to learn French is, however, high. Thus the
design of the literacy and adult education programme is patterned after the way people
actually use languages, and a three-language approach is in no way difficult or
burdensome as an educational strategy as far as the learners are concerned. On the
contrary, the approach is entirely natural and obvious as it builds both on existing
linguistic knowledge and on the demand to access new language resources – literacy in
Ngbaka, enhancing oral Lingala and adding literacy in it, and oral and written French. It
is also noteworthy that the language of instruction and interaction in the programme is
Ngbaka throughout. This means that even when material is presented through other
languages (for instance, by means of a development manual in French), it is explained
and discussed through the language which learners know best and – more importantly –
in which they will apply new knowledge to their daily lives. Undertaken in the most
inauspicious circumstances of deprivation and conflict, this programme provides a model
of a fully integrated multilingual approach to literacy and adult learning.
4.4 Ghana – community-based language strategies
Ghana’s policy on the use of languages in education has shifted back and forth over the
years, sometimes emphasising the role of Ghanaian languages in initial learning,
sometimes stressing the need for all the learn English, the official languages. Ghanaians
speak over 60 local languages, of which fifteen have official status as languages to be
used in education, both formal schooling and adult literacy. Local communities, NGOs
and others are free to use any Ghanaian language in development programmes,
including adult literacy. One such project, undertaken by a local NGO, took a bilingual
approach in some 22 different language communities, offering initial literacy in the local
language of each group, with subsequent learning of English; local-language literacy
was focused on functional uses such as micro-credit and income generation, women’s
empowerment, and the exercise of human rights. Only six of the 22 languages were
among the fifteen accorded official status, and all 22 had established writing systems
only within the last 30 years. Reporting on learners’ own assessment of the benefits and
impact of literacy acquisition, the project evaluation drew up the following list of
responses (SIL UK 2004):

write their own language/mother
tongue


write our children’s names


identify my children’s hospital and
weighing cards
use immunisation clinics, attend
ante-natal and post-natal clinics,
practise exclusive breast-feeding
(on which there is a recent title)
administer prescriptions properly
to children
11

follow children’s progress in school
and read their reports and letters from
school



help children with their homework

understand government policies and
citizens’ rights

know about laws of Ghana, more
informed on rights and responsibilities
access to information from elsewhere
literates become part of a larger global
world
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson

understand family planning
programme

see and read husband’s pay slip, so
he cannot claim not to have been paid

awareness of HIV/AIDS and
STDs


proper application of fertiliser and
chemicals to crops
challenge husband’s relatives when
he dies so that widows are not
cheated out of husband’s property or
their own





write stories and history


use and calculate money


family budgeting


read numbers of vehicles

keep proper records, eg trading
details: names of debtors, amounts,
balance, profit/loss


the Bible is read in the mother
tongue in church
gives possibility of obtaining a loan
and keep written records of payments,
and of opening a savings account

write letters to relatives and
friends

promotes interaction in the wider
society and with other communities

writing a letter without asking a
schoolboy or teacher to write it
helps in learning other languages

maintenance of privacy since I
will not have to ask someone else
to read my letters to me




read letters from my husband’s
girlfriends and confront him
write songs in own language
preserve rich cultural heritage
write newspapers
read a sign board and save
embarrassment of doing the
wrong thing when travelling
I will be able to read the Bible for
myself
transact business and become
innovative
read prices, bills, receipts and market
trading tickets and avoid being
cheated
possibility of learning English
through adding English language and
literacy, participate in discussions
where only English is used
This list is fascinating for the high level of importance given to the interaction between
literacy and language, both the role of the local language and access to English. The
reason at the head of the list – ‘write their own language/mother tongue’ – was a very
frequent response, and seems at first sight to be a superficial and almost circular
comment, adding little to what we already know about literacy. However, it is a most
significant remark in a context where the local language was unwritten until a few years
ago and where schooling and other forms of learning systematically scorned its use, until
very recently. A principal value of literacy and motivation for taking part in literacy groups
is the possibility to use one’s own language in written form and for learning purposes,
thus putting to one side the barrier of having to learn and adopt someone else’s
language and, to a certain extent, someone else’s culture and ways of thinking. This
response may be taken as an expression of many different emotions, ranging from relief
to pride, from cultural self-assertion to joy in learning.
Lest anyone should conclude from these observations that the literacy programme
fostered ethno-linguistic exclusivity, the last two listed reactions should also be noted.
The vast majority of learners wished also to learn English – thus communities expressed
their desire both to use their own language and to learn English, as the language of
wider communication, of broader opportunities and (in the national context) of political
power. These views coincide with those of many, in Africa and elsewhere, who daily use
a number of languages – a multilingual approach to learning is the only appropriate way
forward.
There are interesting consequences for the local implementation of language policies in
schooling from this project. As the government shifts its position on the languages of
schooling from time to time, based on political criteria, another dynamic is at work at the
grassroots. In some communities, parents who have participated in adult literacy in their
12
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
own language have pressured the school to organise local-language literacy classes for
their children, as part of the regular timetable or in addition to it, making schooling a
bilingual process. In many cases the trained facilitators working with adults also teach
the children, since the regular teachers may or may not have the skills for mother tongue
instruction. Thus the use of languages in adult literacy acquisition has had an influence
on children’s schooling; parents wish their children to enjoy the functional and cultural
benefits of multilingual literacy - local language + official language – once they have
experienced them themselves.
4.5
Cameroon – mobilising communities
Cameroon has been described as one of the ‘linguistic shatter zones’ of the world, with
over 250 distinct languages and a population of about 15 million. Grouped in three major
linguistic families – Bantu, Adamawa and Chadic – the largest language community
numbers less than 20% of the total population (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000), with the
implication that some communities are very small, numbering perhaps 2000 speakers. In
addition, Cameroon has the further complexity of using two official languages, French
and English, a legacy of its divided colonial history.
Since independence in 1960, the debate has raged about how to use or integrate
Cameroon’s languages into national life, in particular as part of education. Without
tracing here the vagaries of Cameroon’s language policy and use over the years (cf
Robinson 1996), suffice it to say that it was only in the 1990s that official
pronouncements and legal provisions opened the way for the use of Cameroonian
languages in formal education. Although still not fully generalised, a well-tested model of
bilingual education is now in place in over 300 primary schools, serving more than
340,000 pupils. The system, known as PROPELCA2, enables children to start their
education in their own language and then learn one of the official languages,
transitioning to use the latter as a medium of instruction by the fourth year of primary
education. These developments raised the profile of using Cameroonian languages for
adult learning also.
In fact, local languages had always been used for adult literacy, although not by the
government, which only ran programmes in the official languages. However, local and
international NGOs, churches and missions worked with individual communities to
develop their languages for use in literacy. The question, however, arose as to how such
work could be planned on a broader basis and made available to the many language
communities of the country. What kind of programme could cater to the multilingual
literacy needs of so many different languages and groups? In Cameroon the answer to
these questions, as far as adult literacy is concerned, has been to devolve responsibility
to the communities themselves. Thus language committees came into being at
community level to stimulate and supervise literacy activities. These receive support
from the National Association of Cameroon Language Committees (NACALCO), a
national NGO which offers training in all aspects of adult literacy and some funding for
the production of materials. Currently 76 language committees are affiliated to
NACALCO. In addition, NACALCO staff provide training for teachers in PROPELCA
schools. In addition to selecting teachers and organising adult literacy classes, local
language committees are expected to:
2

Produce a newsletter, at least one per year;

Provide training to literacy facilitators and refresher courses;

Stimulate local authors and publish materials;

Provide follow-up and supervision/assessment of progress in literacy centres.
Projet de Recherche Opérationnelle pour l’Enseignement des Langues au Cameroun.
13
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
A key part of the philosophy of this approach is linking adult literacy with the local
environment. Where PROPELCA schools operate, links between formal and non-formal
learning are possible, bringing adult and child learners together. Language committees
forge links and develop cooperative writing/publishing projects with NGOs in
development areas. Writing competitions are organised for the promotion and
celebration of local knowledge and culture. Along with these activities go classes offering
transition to literacy in one of the official languages.
Like many NGO initiatives, NACALCO has focused on promotion of adult literacy on the
ground, with little documentation or dissemination of its experience or lessons learned.
Its approach of devolving responsibility in a zone of high linguistic diversity has clear
connections with questions of decentralisation and local management. It also offers
insights on how the local context can be fully respected and used in education while at
the same time moving beyond the merely local towards a national, scaled-up approach.
In the light of these connections with crucial EFA questions, it is unfortunate, even
surprising, that since Dakar funding for this initiative has become less available, with one
of its significant projects – enabling 20,000 adults to acquire literacy each year – coming
to an end in 2003 (NACALCO 2005).
5
Issues arising
A number of more general issues arise out of these case studies and these are
highlighted here. Each issue is the subject of research in its own right; however, their
dimensions are sketched here briefly to indicate how fundamental and far-reaching
language questions are in the pursuit of adult literacy.
Languages and adult learning: Why is the language issue of importance specifically in
adult learning and literacy? It is axiomatic in adult education that adults bring
considerable experience and life knowledge into a learning experience and that any
learning process should both recognise and build on this. In terms of language
resources, adults bring a knowledge of their own language and the culture it carries, as
well as possibly knowledge of other languages. While this knowledge may not yet extend
to the written use of any of these languages, their oral command makes literacy learning
a matter of adding new ways of using their linguistic resources. The question of learning
new languages is different and is dealt with below. Since adult literacy programmes are
frequently best structured as part of a wider learning process (new knowledge, skills,
behaviours, etc), using the existing knowledge of adults is key to relevant learning – this
knowledge is transmitted through certain languages in each context, and so these
languages must be part of the learning process.
Status of languages: Such is the prejudice of certain elites and groups that in some
situations a language is defined as a language because it is written, condemning
unwritten languages to an inferior status – often not as languages, but as dialects.
Colonial authorities in francophone Africa (itself a telling phrase!) dubbed African
languages as patois, while in the Arab region, only modern standard Arabic has any
status. The everyday Arabic varieties, quite different from the standard variety, remain
unwritten and considered as deformations of the real language. Concern to make
language a symbol of national unity leads the Bhutanese population to see other
languages as inferior or as mere dialects, although they are in fact languages in their
own right. In terms of literacy acquisition and the definition of what being ‘literate’ means,
it may therefore be that only one kind of literacy is recognised as such, in a particular
language – literacies in other languages may not be considered worthy of the name.
Orality and literacy: In the past much was made of distinctions between oral and
literate societies, in relation to their structure and development. Detailed studies of the
many literacies found in different societies, as well as of communication practices
generally have shown that there is in fact a continuum of oral and literate practices. (see
Collins and Blot 2003). Both orality and literacy are strategies of communication which
14
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
are deployed in various ways and to varying degrees in particular contexts; thus they
stand in symbiotic relationship to each other, not in contrast or opposition. These
insights also do away with the notion that some languages are inherently more suited to
literacy or to certain kinds of thought than others – it is only a question of language
development and language planning, not of the nature of languages.
Literate environment: the concept of the literate environment is a useful way to bring
together all aspects of literacy: acquisition, use, materials, practices, media, institutions,
purposes and languages. As the various case studies above show, multilingual literacies
are frequently promoted by NGOs with little active government support. Where people
acquire literacy in minority languages, the literate environment is often quite weak in that
language with the result that there is little scope for use and little material in that
language. A lack of concern for the whole environment in which literacy is acquired and
used can thus undermine literacy efforts and offer the learner little chance of using
literacy to improve their life. Even in monolingual areas where literacy is in the language
of the majority and where literate environments are relatively strong and dynamic, it may
be that deficiencies of teaching result in the lack of useable literacy skills; this emerges
as a brake on development where people are not fully able to take up learning
opportunities in other skill areas. This was evidenced in an adult distance learning
programme in Mongolia and has echoes in Bangladesh. The lack of analysis of the
literate environment and the neglect of a particular aspect of it, including language, is yet
another factor in reducing development opportunities, or providing opportunities that
cannot in fact be taken up.
Languages and the acquisition of literacy: The language question in the acquisition of
literacy is complex and involves the purposes and practices of literacy, the pedagogies
and material of learning, the institutional frameworks and the sociolinguistic context. I
look here at only two issues: bilingualism and language learning. There persists a myth
in some quarters that acquiring literacy in one language reduces the chances of
acquiring it satisfactorily in another: thus to acquire mother tongue literacy may be seen
as a brake on acquiring literacy in a more widely used language. A further myth, less
widely held today, sees bilingualism as subtractive – learning another language reduces
capacity in the one already known. In fact, the opposite is the case: bilingualism is
additive, and this applies to ‘biliteracy’ also, as some term it (cf Hornberger 2003). As the
DRC study above demonstrated, the use of three languages in adult literacy was entirely
natural, in terms of the way people use languages, and appropriate in terms of the
broader socio-political context. Provision and organisation multilingual literacy
acquisition is seen as expensive and complicated only by those who do not experience
the daily reality of operating in a number of languages – it is the norm for most people in
the world.
The second issue is the confusion between literacy acquisition and language learning. In
multilingual settings, for example in the Ugandan case above, the demand for literacy
may focus on acquiring literacy in the language of power, English or French in Africa for
instance. However, the learning processes to acquire literacy are different from those
involved in learning a second language. Thus these two processes should be handled
separately. Again, as the Ugandan example shows, it is better to acquire literacy first in
a language the learner already knows well – their own mother tongue – before
embarking on learning another language. In this way, the business of learning the
second language does not have to deal simultaneously with literacy acquisition. Where
literacy is only offered in languages that people do not know or know only a little, the
outcome can be that neither good language skills nor good literacy competence are
achieved.
Languages and materials: A complaint of learners in literacy programmes is often that
there is nothing to read, or nothing of interest to read, once they have completed a
literacy course. In contexts of a mainstream language, this may be due to unaffordable
print materials, lack of availability, poor distribution, or institutional control of what people
15
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
should read. In minority language contexts, it is frequently due to the paucity of materials
– there simply is very little to read in the minority language. This evinces once again a
neglect of the overall literate environment. It also points up the need to stress writing as
much as reading; every community has potential authors, and a literacy programme
should aim to dispense writers’ training as an integral part of literacy acquisition.
Whether in a mainstream or minority language context, literacy use will only be
sustained where the literate environment is dynamic and constantly restocked. Most
literacy programmes in the context of development focus on functional materials,
forgetting that part of the motivation for using literacy is learning what is going on locally
and elsewhere, as well as reading for leisure and amusement. This calls for an
emphasis on ephemeral literature, alongside more functional and durable materials.
Languages and the governance and management of literacy work: It is increasingly
recognised that literacy programmes should be organised locally, with full recognition of
the local context; this implies attention to how programmes can be managed locally and
what kind of governance structures would be most suitable. In multilingual settings, the
need for local management and input is compelling, given the need to connect with the
surrounding sociolinguistic environment and to introduce local knowledge and culture.
Working with knowledge-makers and guardians of tradition will only happen when
responsibility for the content of learning lies with the local community. The language
committees of Cameroon illustrate how these aspects of literacy programming can be
brought together and what kind of support they need. It should be said too that
management of this kind is best carried out in the local language, further fostering links
between learning and the wider socio-cultural development of the community. In fact, the
language issue raises much wider questions for decentralisation processes in
multilingual and multicultural contexts: how can social development be conceived,
managed and sustained locally with local consultation and input and with full
consideration of cultural realities? Communication in the languages of the people is a
sine qua non which is routinely ignored.
6
The multilingual imperative
To conclude, it should be clear that policy formulation should follow the needs and
patterns of language use among communities, with particular attention to the way that
minorities structure their use of the language resources available to them. This means
articulating and implementing multilingual policies in a thoroughgoing way. SkutnabbKangas (2000) is a committed proponent of multilingual approaches to education and of
the need to give attention to the languages of minorities and she points out that ‘a single
language of literacy succeeds only in countries which have a very large majority
speaking that language either as their native tongue, or as a really well known lingua
franca’ (p.598). Most countries – and certainly most developing countries – are highly
multilingual. To look at the obverse of the coin, lack of a clear multilingual policy with
respect to education results in the following negative impacts (the list is not exhaustive):

where only a mainstream or official language is the medium of learning:

increased marginalisation from education for those already suffering
disadvantage; in other words, the language barrier often multiplies the
effect of other factors, such as populations who are female, poor,
remote, rural, minority, indigenous, culturally or religiously distinct;

lack of respect for diversity and strong messages of inferiority to those
speaking non-mainstream languages;

use of languages that learners do not know, with resulting low-quality
learning and teaching, and limited learner-facilitator interaction – see
the lessons of the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report on quality
(UNESCO 2004);
16
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson


few learning materials in local languages, with the perpetuation of a
weak literate environment and lack of opportunity for self-expression
and learning through the mother tongue;

neglect of local knowledge, literature (oral or written), accessible
principally through local languages;
where only a local language is the medium of learning:

lack of access to wider sources of knowledge and information,
including electronic media;

barriers to participation in broader social and political life;

possible ‘ghettoization’ of a minority-language population;

reduced intercultural contact and learning;

increased possibilities of exploitation by unscrupulous brokers and
mediators with the wider society (eg economic intermediaries).
Clearly only a policy which provides for the use in learning of the languages people use
in daily communication will avoid these negative consequences.
Even where there may be agreement in principle, objections to multilingual policies are
often articulated, both by governments and by local communities; four of the more
frequent objections are assessed here:

There are too many languages: this presupposes a view that language
diversity is a problem to be solved, rather than an asset to be used, that the
perspective is that of the national official, member of the elite, and not that of
the local communities with their daily communication patterns, and that some
language communities are more important than others. As mentioned earlier,
Papua New Guinea shows the way in one of the most diverse linguistic
environments and in its gradual community-based implementation of a
multilingual policy.

It is too expensive to use local languages in learning programmes: this is
rarely based on an actual assessment of what it would cost, and it entirely
neglects to assess the cost of failed and irrelevant educational schemes,
dropouts, and low quality.

Using local languages fosters social and political division: in fact the opposite
is the case – where local languages and identities are neglected or repressed,
resentment and opposition to ruling groups emerges; examples abound.

Parents prefer to avoid the local language for their children, or for themselves,
so that they can better learn the official or national language: this kind of
attitude needs further exploration in order to discover what it is based on. It is
well known that knowledge of a major language is not necessarily enhanced
by having it as a medium of instruction. Multilingual approaches must be
shown to be feasible and to work – nobody wants to buy into something they
have never seen or perhaps do not believe possible.
A multilingual policy will have the following key features, implemented in ways suited to
local context:

Studies of the linguistic and sociolinguistic situation will be the basis for
understanding which languages should be used in learning; these studies will
include data on the attitudes of communities towards the languages which they
use;

Consultations with local communities to establish links between literacy
providers and local institutions will lead to input into learning and to local
governance and management of programmes;
17
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson

Local authoring and production of material must be the basis for sustainable
development of the literate environment, and for the incorporation of local
knowledge as learning content;

Specific issues of linguistic structure and language use must be considered in
designing the learning of second (and third…) languages, so that the adding of
languages in oral and written form is available to the largest number of people,
with fewest hurdles to jump. In other words, learning additional languages
must take into account the existing language patterns and competences of
learners, building on what they know;

Central government will provide a framework, guidelines and funding for local
initiative, not a fixed or standardised programme of literacy or basic education
under central control.
These issues and concerns are far-reaching – this is no surprise in view of the centrality
of language: it is both the essential means of communication (the lifeblood of learning
and social development), and a key marker of identity. Unless multilingual policies are
designed and implemented in multilingual situations, it should be no surprise if
communication fails and languages become rallying points for increasingly strident cries
for the assertion of a distinct identity.
18
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
7
References
Ager, Dennis. 2001. Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Archer, David and Sarah Cottingham. 1996a. The Reflect Mother Manual. London:
ActionAid.
Archer, David and Sarah Cottingham. 1996b. Action Research Report on Reflect: the
experiences of three Reflect pilot projects in Uganda, Bangladesh and El
Salvador. London: Overseas Development Administration.
Archer, David and Kate Newman (comps). 2003. Communication and Power: Reflect
Practical Resource Materials. London: ActionAid.
Barton, David and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: reading and writing in one
community. London: Routledge.
Bhutan Ministry of Health and Education. 2003. Education Sector Strategy: Realizing
Vision 2020 – Policy and Strategy. Thimphu.
Brock-Utne, Birgid. 2000. Whose Education for All? The Recolonization of the African
Mind. New York/London: Falmer Press.
Chaudenson, Robert and Raymond Renard. 1999. Langues et développement. Paris:
Agence Intergouvernementale de la Francophonie.
Collins, James and Richard K. Blot. 2003. Literacy and literacies: texts, power and
identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dombrowsky, Klaudia, Gérard Dumestre and Francis Simonis. 1993. L’alpabétisation
fonctionnelle en Bambara dans une dynamique de développement – le cas de la
zone cotonnière (Mali-Sud). Paris: Agence Intergouvernementale de la
Francophonie.
Eade, Deborah (ed). 2002. Development and Culture. Oxford: Oxfam.
EAI (Education Action International). 2003. Midterm Review of Project Literacy and
Continuing Education in Uganda 2000 – 2005. Unpublished report.
Gfeller, Elisabeth. 1997. Why should I learn to read? Motivations for literacy acquisition
in a rural education programme. In International Journal of Educational
Development 17(1): 101-112.
Grimes, Barbara F (ed). 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: SIL
International.
Hornberger, Nancy H. (ed). 2003. Continua of Biliteracy: an ecological framework for
educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Kosonen, Kimmo. 2005. Education in Local Languages: Policy and Practice in Southeast
Asia. In First Language First: Community-based Literacy Programmes for
Minority Language Context in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO.
Mansour, Gerda. 1993. Multilingualism and Nation Building. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. 2002. National Adult Literacy
Strategic Investment Plan 2002/3 – 2006/7.
NACALCO (National Association of Cameroon Language Committees). 2005. Notes on
NACALCO Activities. Unpublished report.
Namgyel, Singye. 2003. The Language Web of Bhutan. Thimphu: KMT Publisher.
Robinson, Clinton D.W. 1996. Language Use in Rural Development: an African
Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Robinson, Clinton and Elisabeth Gfeller. 1997. A basic education programme in Africa:
the people’s own? In International Journal of Educational Development 17(3):
295-302.
19
GMR 2006 Commissioned Study
Languages and Literacies
C.Robinson
SIL International. 2001. Rapport Annuel d’Alphabétisation. Nairobi: SIL International
Région d’Afrique.
SIL International. 2003. Women in Literacy: 2003 Report. Dallas: SIL International.
SIL UK. 2004. Adult Education and Development in Central and Northern Ghana (CSCF
76): an evaluation. Unpublished report.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity
and Human Rights? Mahwah/London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Street, Brian. 1995. Social Literacies: critical approaches to literacy in development,
ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Street, Brian (ed). 2001. Literacy and Development: ethnographic perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Tearfund. 2004. An evaluation of the PILLARS Pilot Project (Partnership in Local
Language Resources). Unpublished report.
UNESCO. 2003. Education in a multilingual world. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2004. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All – the Quality
Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.
WCCD (World Commission on Culture and Development). 1995. Our Creative Diversity.
Paris: WCCD.
20