-354
Pragmatics
2:3.335
International
Pragmatics
Association
RADIO TIMB SHARING AND THE NEGOTIATION
OF LINGUISTIC PLURALISM IN ZAMBIA1
Debra Spitulnik
Theseven(7) mainvernacularlanguages
on the Media representall seventythree (73) tribes
foundin Tambia(Kapeyal98S: 3).
,
Theproblemis, we havebeenrecognizedas a language,so why be mistreated?. . . It remains
thatthebig twoor the big four get mostof the time. . . But you can't raisetheseissuesbecause
youmaybe calleda rribalist(Anonymous).
L Introduction.
mass
mediaconstructthe communicativespaceof the nation-state,all of a nation's
dialects,
and languagevarieties,and the speechcommunitiesassociatedwith
are automaticallydrawn into relations with one another. Some languagesand
maybe dominantwith a greaterquantityand quality of media products,some
berepresented
only minimally,and still others may be completelyabsent,either
or ignored.While there is a growing literature on how such institutional
are bound up with the politics of ethnicity and national identity, the
ing' of national communities,and the establishmentand maintenance of
linguisticpractices2,it seemsto me that three basic issueshave remained
understudied:
(1) How do various institutional practicesdifferentially value languages (and
variants),and which aspectsof languagein particular become important in
institutional
constructionof languagevalue?
(2)Howdo peopletalk about (andjustify or contest)theseinstitutionalpractices
I A muchshorterversionof this articlewaspresented
at the AAA conference,November23, 1991,.
isdrawnfrom 1988-1990
researchat the TambiaNational BroadcastingCorporation,which was
byFulbright-Hays
and NSF fellowshipsand facilitatedby the Institutefor African Studiesar
Univenityof Zambia. I am especiallygrateful to the numerousZNBC personnelwho generously
I Oeirtimeandencouragement
to this project,and to SusanPhilips,Michael Silverstein,Edwin
andtwo anonymous
hagmaticsreviewersfor their insightfulcommentson earlier drafts.
2See,forexample,
Anderson(1983),Collins(1988),Fishman(1989),Gal (1989),Silverstein(Lg87,
andWoolard(1985,1989).
336
DebraSpinlnik
and valuations?
(3) How are (1) and (2) related?How is discourseabout languagevaluesrelated
to the valuations of languagein practice?
This article attempts a preliminary exploration of these issuesthrough a case
study of the politics of linguisticpluralismin Zambian radio. Echoing the introductory
'73
quotes, we will examine how seven radio languagesare made to "represent"
ethnic
groups, and how certain languages are accorded high status while others are
"mistreated." Before turning specifically to the Zambian situation, however, we will
elaborate the issuesraised above and sketch out their connectionsto the problem of
language ideology as it has been variously defined in recent work.
In some analysesthese types of commentsand practices - e.g. evaluating some
languages as "better" than others or constructing a national scheme of linguistic
pluralism - would be considered language ideologies, or evidence of language
ideologies.Certainly thesephenomenaare'ideological'in the sensethat they feed into
and are fuelled by relations of power and interesr.They are also 'ideological' in the
sense that they are tied up with the cultural conceptions(or modes of understanding
and evaluation) that characterize any given society.And finally, they are 'ideological'
in the sense that languagescan representspeech communities, and thus become the
focus of political strugglesover who counts and is counted in the national arena.
As both Woolard (this volume) and Friedrich (1989) point out, such applications
of the term "language ideology" traverse the complex (and often competing)
formulations of ideolog5r in social theory, e.g. as shared beliefs, secondary
rationalizations,and modes of legitimating power relations.These types can overlap to
some degree and may also be differently defined in terms of where ideology residesand
how, analytically,it can be distilled. Thus some definitions revolve around distinctions
between "explicit" and "implicit" ideology, or the relationship of consciousnessand
speech to ideologieswhich are embodied "in practice." But as the applications of the
term "ideology" proliferate, it seemsto be less and less useful analytically. And if, as
Friedrich suggests,"everything" is potentially ideological in the sensethat the cultural
construction of meaning and value is bound up with relations of power and interest
(1989: 300), then the term is only useful in a technical sense within a theoretical
framework which specifies what kinds of data count as ideology (i.e. what if not
"everything"is ideological), and what kinds of relations of determination exist between
these levels of phenomena (e.g. between the ideologicaland the non-ideological,or
between power and culture).
I raise these difficult theoreticalissuesnot so much to take a stanceon them,
but to clear some ground, and to return to some more basic questionsabout the kinds
of evidence that we use (1) to identify and distill cultural conceptions (and
understandings)of language,languages,their speakers,and languageuse, and (2) to
investigate the role of powerful institutions in constructing and maintaining these
conceptions(or valuationsor 'ideologies').Rather than looking directly for ideas, or
who wins, it seems more productive at least initially to examine such questions of
language ideology through the recurrent themes that emerge from a range of types of
historical changes,
data (e.g. interviews,political documents,participant-observation,
Lingtisticpluralismin Zambia 337
etc.).Silverstein
(1987)and Woolard (1989),for example,locate languagevaluations
in therhetoricalstructuring,folk views,and common metaphors, analogiesand tropes
thatdominatecertain languagepolicy debatesin the United States.While any or all
of thesediscursivemodesand moves might be called "languageideologies",neither of
thetwo studiesuse this cover term, and instead frame the problem of the politics of
valuespecificallyin terms of the production of certain kinds of discourseand
language
commentary.
Followingthis approach here, I hope to introduce a further dimension to the
problem,namely,how one might connect the ways that people talk about the values
androlesof languages
with broader institutional processes.Thus beyond identifying the
commonthemesand tropes in the spoken battles over languagevalue in Zambia, I
attemptto traceout their sourcesin and resonanceswith the national discourseon
pluralism,the historical emergence of a scheme of language ranking, and the
valuationof languagesin broadcastingpractice.And although this essayhas
differential
openedin a sensewith the spoken battles, I begin with the more general processesto
establish
the historicaland political momentum behind the various ways that people
talk.
2.An overviewof radio's role in the negotiation of linguistic pluralism.
Sinceits inception51 years ago, radio broadcastinghas been one of the most visible
and contested arenas of language valuation and national language policy
in Zambia. Fundamentally, what underlies the political volatility of
implementation
useon radio is that Zambian broadcastingis the primary state institution for
language
representing
both national unity and national diversity.Radio is restricted to use only
ei$t of the country's 15 or so languages:English, Bemba, Kaonde, Lozi, Lunda,
Nyanja,and Tonga.At the sametime however,radio is chargedwith upholding
Luvale,
philosophy
a national
of ethnic egalitarianism(amongthe nation's"73 tribes") and the
obvious
aim of political encompassment,as encapsulatedin the national motto "One
Zambia,One Nation." Collectively, then, the eight radio languagesare intended to
both the nation as a whole and its internal diversity.
rcpresent
In this processZambian radio operates with trvo competing visions of the
nation's
diversity.Radio's use of different languagesis structured by both a vision of
egalitarianism
in line with nationalistdiscourse,and a hierarchicalranking of the
ethnic
which is linked to the political and demographicinequalitiesamong
languages
nation's
theirspeech
communities.As we will seein more detail below, Radio Zambia balances
thesedifferentpluralismsin three basic ways: (1) through a differential allocation of
radioairtimewhich both regulates language equality and gives languages different
values,(2) throughvarious modes of establishingevaluationsof each of the
unequal
Zambianradio languagesvis-a-visthe country's national language English, and
seven
the interestsof 73 ethnic groups within the programming
CI)by accommodating
constraints
of thesesevenlanguages.
Whilethesevariousvaluationsof language"in practice"do not directly dictate
338
DebraSpiulnik
the ways that Zambians talk about the politics of language value, there are strong
relations of determination.The discussionbelow illustrateshow certain institutional
processesgive a fixity and legitimacyto (i.e. naturalize) certain languagevaluations,but
are also at times contested,manipulated,or simply ineffectivein producing consensus.
A different kind of determination arisesfrom the particular structuresand functions
specificto an institution in the sensethat they may focuson some featuresof language
(e.g. phonology, syntax, code choice) as more critical than others in constructing
languagevalue. As radio is a medium definedand structuredby time, wavelengths,and
sound, it is not surprising that much of the concern over radio language use in
multilingual situationssuch as Zambia has been about the allocation of airtime and
channelsto different languagesand the normativeuse of "standard"or "non-standard"
phonology.3
Additionally, there are somemodesof evaluatinglanguageswhich while implicit
in broadcastingpractice, actually have their sources(or are just as solidly grounded)
outside of radio, in national discourse,in labor markets, and in more general
understandings about the relations between language,culture, and identity. For
example, a major theme in the negotiation of linguistic pluralism in Zambia concerns
the way in which "a language"is taken to emblematize a people, an ethnic group, or
a political unit. Closely tied to this interpretation of languagesas representing
collectivitiesare evaluationsof the communicativefunctions(or domainsor topics) that
they canonicallyserye. Using Ferguson'sclassicformulation of diglossia,this would
involve the "specialization of function" of different codes across different speech
situations,contexts,and genres (1959: 328). But from the perspectiveof institutional
practices,rather than speaker choice or overall contextualdistribution of codes,this
of different languagesfor different
"specialization"dependson how the appropriateness
functions and topics is legitimated by some regularity of practices.For example in
Zambian broadcasting, some languages are constructed as more "intellectually
equipped"and others as better suited for "cultural expression"through their exclusive
use for certain program types. Significantly,these perceived qualities of languagesare
entangled with particular assessments
of their speakers,e.g. as rural people, urban
consumers,"illiterate","sophisticated","insignificant",etc., and I would argue that the
two modes of evaluationare not really separable.These evaluationsdo not emanate
strictly from radio, however, but are more directly grounded in the overall political
economy of languagesin the country, os linguisticcompetence(and membership in
certain speechcommunities)structuresaccessto education,labor markets,and political
power.
' Interestin normativelanguage
usealsofocuses
vocabulary,
on issuesof "non-standard"
idiomsand
syntax,as well as normsof languageinteraction(e.g.whetherbroadcasters
exhibitproper turn-taking
and deference).
pluralismin Zambia 339
Linguistic
3. Pluralism in national politics.
Ihe culturalization of ethnicity and the vicesof tribalism.
Turning now to Zambia's national discourse on pluralism, there are 73 officially
recognized
ethnic groups which are constructedas equallydifferent,i.e. different in the
sameway, in terms of their presumably harmless, apolitical 'cultural' differences.
Amountingto a virtual culruralizationof ethniciyt,each ethnic group is said to have its
ownunique traditions, dances,songs,and history, which it is encouraged to preserve
and promote for the sake of the youth, tourism, and national identity. National
discourse
thus attempts to diffuse the political dimensionsof ethnicity at the same time
thatit promotesan image of the state as tolerant of diversity.Referencesto the more
volatiledifferencesbetween ethnic groups,particularly their inequalities in population,
politicalpositions,
and economicresources,are avoidedat all costs.Furthermore,there
is no direct discussionof ethnic favoritism or conflict at the national level (except to
denouncethem), although both significantlystructure social relations and politics, and
arefrequenttopics of everydayconversation.
Instead, politicians constantly invoke the national motto "One Zambi4 One
Nation"as a symbol of a national unity which is predicated on being able to hold
togetherand tolerate ethnic difference. On this note, Zambia is rather exceptional
amongmodern African states as it has experiencedalmost no violent ethnic conflict,
andhaspreventedany one ethnic group from monopolizing political power. But while
claimingto have forged a national unity of."73 tribes united", the Zambian state has
always
simultaneouslyattended to the politics of ethnic difference and special interest.
Zambia's
first and long ruling presidentKenneth Kaunda carefully orchestrateda policy
of "tribalbalancing"in political appointments,and early on articulated what became the
generalconsensusin Zambia's political culture regarding the "deadly vice" of tribalism
(Kaunda,L967: 11). Analogous to racism or sexism, tribalism is understood as
discrimination
or preference based on ethnic identity. Warnings against "falling victim
t0 tdbalism" and denunciations of its divisive, retrogressive, and fundamentally
un-Zambiannature pervade political oratory, and were continually raised during
one-party
rule (1972-1990)in illustrationsof what would ensueif a multi-party system
wereadopted.
In a very curious and complex way, then, Zambia's rhetoric of encompassing
nationalism
("One Zambia, One Nation") and its philosophy of ethnic pluralism are
mutuallyreinforcing,but are also in a constant state of tension with the possibility of
ideological
implosion. The national claim to build unity, fend off tribalism, and also
encourage
unique ethnic cultures,createsa cautiouspluralism within bounds, where
diversity
alwaysvergeson divisiveness,and where attention to difference itself borders
on subversion.
As we will soon see, this, in a nutshell, describesRadio Zambia's
positionconcerninglanguagediversity as well.
;.
*
I
340
Debra Spitulnik
4. Democratic vs. hierarchical
linguistic pluralism.
A convergenceof language history, po@, and demographics.
Alongside the national discourse of apolitical ethnic egalitarianism, Zambia has
developed a national language policy which also stresses pluralism but ignores
difference. This has been accomplishedmainly through sanctioningan extraordinarily
high number of "official languages"- seven - which are all subordinated to the
ethnically neutral "national language",English. The seven official Zambian languages
are Bemba, Kaonde, Lazi, Lunda, Luvale, Nyanja, and Tonga, and they are the only
Zambian languages used in broadcasting, schools, and government publications.
English, the former colonial language,is the languageof government,higher education,
and international communication.The choice of.whichseven,out of a total of between
15 and 20 distinct languagesand perhaps as many as 50 different dialectsa,was fairly
well determined before independenceby the convergenceof severalprocesses:colonial
language policy (especiallyin broadcastingand education), missionarywork, and labor
migration patterns which establishedBemba and Nyanja as the colony's two urban
lingua francas.s
Crucially, English, Bemba, and Nyanja were the first languagesof Northern
Rhodesian broadcasting,which started in 1947as a World War II information service.
Following the war, Lnzi and Tonga were added as the serviceexpanded.According to
Harry Franklin, the Northern Rhodesian Director of Information, nearly everyone
understood these four "main 'root' languages of the country", and thus it was
unnecessaryto add more languagesdespite several requeststo do so (1950: 16).
Significantly, Franklin saw radio as having a key role in helping to standardize
languagesand promote the dominance of some over others:
andwe hope
Africa'sbabelof tongues
is oneof themaincauses
of its people's
backwardness,
broadcast
ratherthanto increase
thern,andso to playa partin
eventually
to reducelanguages
in the universal
the eventual
development
of oneAfricantongue. . . andstill moreremotely,
useof English(1950:16).
Over time, the selection and dominance of the four languages became mutually
reinforcing, and this arrangement was extremely convenient administratively, as their
geographic distribution virtually aligned with the four compasspoints North (Bemba),
South (Tonga), East (Nyanja), and West (I-nzi), which defined the major provinces of
a
The mostcomprehensive
studiessuggestthar thereare 15to 20 distinct(non-mutuallyintelligible)
languagesin Zambia, but many of the 73 ethnic groupsclaim to speak their own unique language
vs."a dialect",which
(Kashoki,1978).Behindthis is the complex,politicalissueof defining"a language"
is further compoundedby the limited comparativedata on languagevariation in the country. Cf.
Kashoki and Mann (1978)and lrhmann (1978).
5 Historical data is drawn mainly from Kashoki(1978),Roberts(1976),and Mytton (1978).
Linpisticpluralismin Zambia 34I
the colony.6In 1954,however, the two Northwestern Province languagesLunda and
Luvalewere added to broadcasting (no single language was prominent in the
province),
and at Zambia's independencein 1964,an additional Northwestern Province
language,
Kaonde,was included.
The contemporarylinguisticsituation inZambia is in large part a legacyof these
trendsin colonialadministration,and the related trends in ethnic politics. In effect, the
useof numerousZambian languagesin early radio broadcastingdid not help to reduce
"theAfrican Babel", but helped to permanently establishsome of the basic terms in
whichethnolinguisticdiversity is structured and experienced in Zambian society.
Differentlanguagesbecame associatedwith different prestige values and domains of
usein the nationalcon_text,
primarily through the "uneven development" of the ethnic
goupsspeakingthem/ and their concurrentunequal valuation in broadcasting.The
highstatusandwidespreaduse of Bemba and Nyanja, "the big two", grew as their value
in the urbanlabor marketsbecameestablished,and this was accompaniedby higher
proportions
of radio airtime for them. These two, along with Lozi and Tonga came to
beknownas"the big four" as their first languagespeakersemerged as the major ethnic
and regional power blocks in national politics (cf. Molteno 1974). For most of
broadcasting
histor!, Lozi and Tonga have had slightly lower proportions of airtime
thanBembaand Nyanja,but more than the three Northwestern languageswhich are
associated
with much smaller populationsand ethnic power bases.The use of these
threein contemporaryZambia is fairly limited to their own mother-tongue populations
(e.g.l%o
of all ZambiansspeakKaonde,while 37oof the countryis ethnicallyKaonde).
By contrast,the Bemba and Nyanja languagesfar outreach their ethnic populations
(l9%oand l6Vo) and are spoken by 56Vo and 42% of all Zambians, respectively
(Kashoki,
1978).What obtainsthen in Zambia is not a situation of democrarrclinguistic
pluralism
in line with the nationaldiscourseof ethnic egalitarianism.All languages(or
evenjust the seven chosen languages)are not equally valued, rather, they are
hierarchicafu
ranked(Figure 1). This languageranking is both a historical product of
colonial
administration
and ethnic politics,and a partial diagram of the demographic
andstatusinequalities
among speechcommunities.
,l
I
ii
I
ii
6 The.ont.mporary
discourseof regionalism,which flows directly from theserelationsof power
established
duringthe colonialperiod,is one of the major tropes of ethnic and languagepolitics in
Zambia,
anddeserves
much more treatmentthan is possiblehere (cf. Mitchell 1956:28-30 and van
Binsbergen
1985:203).
7
Thehistorical
connections
betweencolonial languagepolicyand the constructionof ethnicityin
Zrnbiaremainro be fully investigated.But see Mitchell (1956)and van Binsbergen(1985) on how
dbpritiesin missionization,
rural development,and acressto educationand labor markets were
imtrumental
in the articulationof ethnic differenceand affiliation during the colonial period.
342
DebraSpirulnik
Figure 1. Hierarchical linguistic pluralism rn Zambia.
English
colonial language
international language
urban lingua francas
languages of dominant
ethnic groups
I
Bemba, Nyanja
I
Bemba, Nyanja, Lnzi, Tonga
\
"official languages'
-
Northwestern Province
languages
"nationallanguage'
government,higher education,
TV, radio, daily newspapers
r
r
schools, radio,
monthlynewspapers
Kaonde, Lunda, LUVale
I
other languagesand dialects
Luunda, Mambwe, Nkoya, Soli, Tumbuka, etc.
5. The politics of languagevalue in contemporary radio.
Partitioning the linguktic universe.
The politics of languagevalue, and especiallythe grounding of this scheme of hierarchical linguistic pluralism, occur most prominently in four domains in which the
Zambian linguisticuniverseis essentiallypartitionedthroughbroadcastingpractice:the
radio channel,airtime, administrativeresources,and program content.In the following,
we will examine how the very way that the medium of radio is carved up establishes
basic structural contrastswhich can become focal points for the construction (and
contestation)of languagevalue.
Since the early daysof broadcastingin Zambia the airwaveshave been carefully
divided up among different languages,and concurrentlydistinct administrativeunits
have been assignedresponsibilityfor the output in each of the different languages.
Most pronouncedhasbeen the segregationof Englishvs. Zambian languages- in terms
of both airwaves and program types - and one of the key issuesof attention and
contestationhas been which Zambian languagesare treatedmore (or less)like English,
which clearly occupies the privileged position in the language hierarchy. Table 1
illustratesthe specialstatusof English in terms of ZNBC's radio channels.8Not only
are there currently more than twice as many hours for English as for all Zambian
languages combined, but the two English channels also monopolize the more
8 While technically "channelndenotes
a broadcastfrequency,it ZNBC's term for a distinct
programmingschedule.ZNBC runsthe country'sonlybroadcasting
operations:
one televisionand four
radio channels.Radio 3 is an externalservicefor SouthernAfrica. The three domesticradio channels
are all centrallyrun from the capitalLusakaand havesimultaneous
nationaltransmissionon their
various frequencies.
pluralisnrin Zambia 343
Linguistic
prcstigious
FM frequencies.
Furthermore,up until 1991,Zambian televisionbroadcast
exclusively
in English,and presentlyit carries only one hour of Zambian languagesper
day.The names"Radio 1" and "Radio 2" were introducedin 1989with the creation of
"Radio4", and were precededby five other pairs of labels. The various alterations in
boththe channels'namesand languagesreveal a constantattention to the politics of
language
value,and illustratethe ongoingpracticeswhich are necessaryto sustainand
justiffcertainvaluations;we considerthem in detail below.e
Trble1.
ZNBC radio operations,1990.
Radio
I
Radio2
Hours
Frequencies languages7oof totalradiobroadcast
time
04.50-24.05 SW,MW
3lVo
7 Zambianlgs
04.50-24.05 SW,MW, FM English
3l Vo
Radio 4
Contin. 24 hrs FM stereo
Enplish
38Vo
From the late 1940s up to Zambian independence in 1964, broadcasting
for Africansand Europeanswere separate.The "African Service"emanated
operations
fromLusaka(the Northern Rhodesiancapital) and the "English Seryice"came from
(theSouthernRhodesiancapital).The African Servicecarried a few programs
Salisbury
in Englishfor Africans, but most English language programs were produced in the
Southern
Rhodesianstudios.Zambianbroadcastinginherited this operational imbalance
andlanguage
segregation
at independence,and out of this situation the "Vernacular
Scwice"(with 7 Zambian languages)and the "National Service" (with English only)
werecreatedin 1964.Racialovertoneswere thus eliminatedwith both the rejection of
thelabel"African"and the revaluing of English as something "National", i.e. rightfully
belonging
to the newlyindependentnation-stateand not any one race. But even with
these
newlabels,the comparativescopesof the two channelsand their implicationsfor
valuationsremained fundamentally the same: Zambian languageswere still
language
segfegated
from English,which stood apart as the languageof wider, national, and
moremoderncommunication.
Oppositionsto these distinctions erupted during the two years following
independence
as the channels' names were changed three more times, and
controversies
continuedas the allocationof languagesto each channelwas altered as
well.ln1965,for example,the National Servicewas relabeled"the English Sewice",in
anattemptto dispelany implicationthat the "vernacular"languagesof its counterpart
werenotalso'national'.
The implicationendured,however,and in 1966the Vernacular
and EnglishServiceswere renamed "Home" and "General" thus even further
accentuating
differencesin scope. The Home Service, as something 'not-general',
caniedconnotations
of being specific, local, and even narrow. Resonating with
9
Sour..s, Handbookto the Federationof Rhodesiaand Nyasaland,1960(Salisbury:Government
Printe4p.552.A Handbookto theRepublicof Zambia,c. 1965(Lusaka:GovernmentPrinter) p.105-7.
(January29,1965- February10, 1967).
l*hilo,nos.183-236
344
Debra Spitulnik
Zambian idioms of ethnic origin and rootedness,the word "home" also signalled that
the "vernacular" broadcastswere for rural and ethnic-basedaudiences,and tapped into
their essentialidentities,e.g.
the importance
of a vernacular
"[ZNBCrealizes]
language
asbeingthe [sic]mostandproper
communicator
anda trueidentifierof man'sbelonging.
. . (Kapeya1988:2).'
Even after the Home Service was relabelled "Radio 1" in 1989, ZNBC broadcasters
continued to draw upon the themes of home and belonging in promoting the channel,
e.g. in Bemba sloganssuch as "Kumwesuhualiwama",'At home (our place), it's nice'.
The General Service,on the other hand,as something'not-home',did notbelong
to anyone in particular. Associated with wider (more general) spheres of
communication, and seeminglydissociatedfrom locality, ethnicity, and special interest,
the General Serviceused the one languagewhich symbolizesthe transcendenceof such
boundaries, English. This situation did not remain for long, however, and soon several
controversieserupted over which languagescould rightfully share time with English on
the General Service. In early 1966 "the big four" (Bemba, Nyanja, I-ozi, Tonga) were
added with the rationale that their audienceswere larger and therefore they needed
more hours. But a year later, I-ozi and Tonga were removed, leaving "the big two",
which remained on the General Service with English for nearly 20 years, thus
acknowledgingthe wider scopeof the linguafrancas and the possibilitythat they did not
necessarilybelong to any one people.
The problem, was however, that while Bemba and Nyanja are widely used by
people of all ethnicities, their links to specific ethnic constituenciesremains a
continually invocable reason for limiting their use at the national level. Bemba and
Nyanja are simply not 'general' like English, and in selectingthem over others one is
open to being "called a tribalist", as this complaint to the Ministry of Information and
Broadcastingimplies:
nSome languages have more
hours than others [and] only nvo of the seven languages are on the
General Service . . . [This is] unfair as far as the national motto of nOne Zambia, One Nation"
is concerned. (Lrtter from Northwestern Province, received 13 August 1981, ZBS|101/1/5)."
Since the national motto "One Zambia, One Nation" is about uniting an ethnically
plural society,to these letter writers unity was violated by separatingout two Zambian
languagesto share a channel with English. As the pressuresincreasedfor the General
Service to "include everybody",the other five languageswere added in the mid 1980's
but equal time was not granted. The situation was then dramatically reversed in 1988.
All Zambian languageswere removed from the General Service, and it resumed its
much earlier status as English only. Significantly,this 'all or nothing' decision evoked
both praise and criticism, essentiallydrawing from two competing visions of pluralism.
On the one hand there was the danger of having too much pluralism, i.e. a
pluralism verging on divisiveness and confusion ("the African Babel"), with the
possibility of contamination especiallywhen it came to mixing on a com-mon channel
with English. One listener, for example,lauded the removal of Zambian languagesand
expressedthe
Lingubticpluralismin Zambia 345
"sincere
hopethatthesechanges
will helpbringbackto life the [sic]turnishedimageof the
general
service
. . .^(Timesof Zambia,October16,1988,p.4).
Othersfelt that the presenceof Zambian languageson a channel with English was too
disruptive,
or that only English was necessaryfor General Service programs such as
health,farming,and educationalbroadcasts.The colonial bifurcation of English vs. all
other languagesthus remained with lingering connotations of English as the sole
language
of prestigeand progress.
On the other hand, there was the view of pluralism as positive and necessaryfor
nationalcommunicationand the promotion of Zambian culture. Several listeners
stronglyopposedthe removal of all Zambian languagesfrom the General Service,
complaining
for examplethat "English has the lion's share" while Zambian languages
were "deprived of adequate air time" (Times of Zambia October 1988). One
commented
sarcastically,"I suppose that is the penalty they get for being Zambian
languages"
(Timesof Zambia October 11, 1988 p.2).
The problemof singlingout two languagessurfacedagain in 1989when ZNBC
introduced
Radio 4, a 24 hour FM stereo channel designedto carry a mixture of pop
musicprogrammingand commercial advertising.toInitially, some ZNBC staff thought
Radio4 woulduseall eight languages,but from the outset it was English only. This was
justifiedby claimsthat advertisersall preferred English, and that listeners who spoke
only"the home languages"had no buying power and would therefore not be good
audiences
for a channelthat was to be supported by advertisingrevenue. Other staff
notedthat since FM radio covered only urban areas, there was no need for the
vernaculars
which wete for villagers. But despite all of these seemingly objective
appeals
to externalfactors,none of these claims were supported by market research,
andin fact they ran contrary to the well known fact at ZNBC that urban people do
listento Bembaand Nyanja programs.
Sowhy weren't the two linguafrancas added to the new urban-basedchannel?
Overtwo-thirds
of all Zambiansspeakat least one of theselanguages,and nearly half
of all Zambianslive in urban areas.Certainly the listenerswere there. And regarding
business
interest,one senior executiveacknowledgedthat
ib
sjI6
F
;.
"Bemba
andNyanja
thatbringanymoney[onRadio1]. That'swhy
aretheonlytwolanguages
theyareslotted
at lunchtime,andtheyhavemmmercial
programs
. . . Thesponsors
shunsome
of these
otherflanguages]."
ZNBCexecutives
knew that the two linguafrancas could have been successfulon Radio
4, but the choicewas political. In terms of ethnolinguisticimpartiality, the issue
paralleled
that of the embattled General Service languages:either have all Zambian
languages
on the new channel,or none at all. Even if Bemba and Nyanja reach wider
10Rrdio Zambia
has had commercialadvertisingsince the 1960s,but Radio 4 was createdto
increase
advertising
income.As ZNBC is a parastatalbody with corporatestatus,it can generateand
controlledby the Ministry of Information.Radio 4 is thus
invest
itsownrevenues,
but it is substantially
lol a "commercial"
(privatelyowned) radio channelin the Westernsense,and outside commercial
interests
havehadonly minimalimpactin shapingprogrammingdecisions.
346
DebraSpirulnik
audiences,their connectionsto specificethnic groups lurks in the background of any
decisionover their use. With the additionalaim of stylingRadio 4 after Western FM
pop radio, the exclusiveuseof Englishnot only dispelledcontroversiesover "tribalism",
but was a 'natural' consequenceof its statusas the modern, international language.
The linguistic division of labor.
The "penalty" that Zambian languages"get for being Zambian languages"thus extends
beyond the allocationof airtime and channelsinto a virtual institutionalizationof what
counts as their appropriate program content.Englishhas long been establishedas the
languageof internationalnews,current affairsdiscussions,
and the majority of scientific
and formal education programs, while Zambian languagescarry mostly cultural and
development programs.lr Ethnolinguisticpluralism is therefore contained not only
within one channel,but also in terms of certaintopics,and specificallythrough an equal
subordinationunder English in this linguisticdivisionof labor.
Most prominent is the construction of language equality through linguistic
uniformity. To take one example,the sameEnglishscript is used to prepare the daily
Zambian language newscasts,so the news in each of the seven languagesis identical
in format and content. The master text is extractedfrom the script of the preceding
English language"Main News",but it is half the length, with the international items
usually omitted. In this equal subordinationunder English, Zambian languagesare
often equated with the rural folk, even though nearly half of all Zambians and over
three-quartersof all radio listenerslive in urban areas.Thus similar to the Radio 4 case
above, news staff claim to be just following the norms "out there" when they explain
that the "sophistication"of the Radio 1 audiencediffers from the English language
audience,and that a five minute excerptfrom the ten minute Englishnewsis adequate
for them. As one senior news editor elaborated,"We wouldn't give an item on the
SALT talks in Geneva. If they could understandthat, they could listen in English."
Another said,
"You don't pick something
you maybe reachingilliterates. . .
in Saigonor China,because
There are complicated issues which wouldn't even make sense to them.'
There was no audienceresearch,however,to substantiatetheseviews,and in a sense,
the ability of newscastingto widen people's horizons was short-circuited by the
assumptionthat their intelligencewas unalterablylimited. Many Zambians who know
little or no English do have an interest in world events, and would like more
international news in their own languages.
In apparentcontrastto the newseditors'statements,
ZNBC administratorspoint
to the use of sevenlanguagesas examplesof broadcasting's
dedicationto the national
ll
The functional segregationof languagesis even more severe in the education system. English
is the medium of instruction after Grade 3, and Zambian languages are taught as subjects, with
traditional culture as typical content.
policyof "takingthings to the people." But what,, J;';'":::;::
:;::
people?Most informational programs in Zambian languagesare on national politics
anddevelopment
topicssuchas farming and health,and I would argue their audiences
are in a sense"the imagined others" for the highly cosmopolitanEnglish speaking
broadcasting
elite. The audiencesthought of as "illiterates"are basciallythose who
havenot reacheda certain level of formal education,in English, and to some media
elitethisprecludesan ability to comprehendor share the sameworld views.
Not onlydoesradio'sinstitutionalizationof limited programcontentfor Zambian
languages
perpetuatethis perceiveddivide, but the use of English master scripts for
theseinformationalprogramsfurther regulateslinguisticuniformity (or egalitarianism),
andconstructs
English'shigh value as the scientificand factual language. By contrast,
mostindependentlyscripted programs in Zambian languagesadhere to the politically
acceptable
expressionsof ethnic diversity - that is, traditional music, storytelling, and
culturaltopics. Through these broadcastingpractices,then, the sevenvernaculars are
valuedas equally transparent vehicles for communicating the same information to
ethnically
diversepeople, and as equally particularisticcodes for gaining accessto
different
ethniccultures.12
Tnu sharingon Radio I: Regulating language samenessand difrerence.
fu indicatedabove,the allocation of radio airtime itself has emerged as one of the key
measurements
of linguisticequity:not all languageshavethe sameamounts(and types)
of air-time,and thus the promotion of a simple linguisticegalitarianismas one would
expectfrom the national philosophy is far from clear. Instead, Radio Zambia has
developed
a complexschedulewhich simultaneouslyregulates language equality and
giveslanguages
different, unequal values.With such a dynamic of languagevaluation,
radioboth upholdsa vision of balanced pluralism and operates with its seeming
contradiction,
a schemeof hierarchicallinguisticpluralism.
Significantly,
the partitioning of radio airtime among seven Zambian languages
andtheirabilityto represent73 ethnic groupsis limited to one radio channel. Figure
2 illustrateshow Radio 1's schedule carefully staggers the seven Zambian radio
languages
acrossthe different days and times of the week, and this establishesa basic
imageof one national pie that is getting divided up. As people talk about this radio
timesharing,variousdiscoursesof ethnolinguisticdemocracy are invoked which play
intoandseizeupon thesestructuralcontrasts.
12
If Zt*birn languages
are cultural reservoirsthen Englishis an economicreservoir,or at least
theavenue
for tappinginto economicresources.This issueneedsmore extensivetreatmentin terms
of the overallpolitical economyof languagesand class dynamicsin the country, but briefly its
significance
in radio'snegotiationof linguisticpluralismlies in English'sexclusiveuse as the neutral
language
of translationand encompassment.
The materialhere suggeststhat radio's (and the media
elita')rolein constructing
this seeminglynatural neutralityand transcendence
of English cannot be
undentated.
348
Debra Spirulnik
Figure 2. Time allocation of Radio 1 languages (1990).13
Time
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
04.50-08.00
B
T
LnlLv
Lz
K
N
B
08.00-10.00
Lz
K
T
Lv
T
Ln
B
10.00-12.00
T
Lv
Lz
T
Ln
Lz
T
12.00-14.00
N
B
N
B
N
B
N
14.00-16.00
T
LnlLv
Lz
Lz
K
N
Lz
16.00-18.00
Lz
K
T
Ln
Lz
B
N
18:00-20.00
T
Lz
Ln
K
Lv
Lv
T
20.00-24.05
Lz
N
B
N
B
T
B
[B Bemba; K Kaonde; Ln Lunda; Lv Luvale;Lzl.ozi; N Nyanja; T Tonga]
Below, we see that the national motto "One Zambia, One Nation" becomes a
dictum of democracy, i.e. equal representation for all, which then feeds into various
modes of measuring language "equality" and "inequality." The middle term in this
equation is the essentialistnotion that a languageis a "true identifier"of a people, thus:
if languages represent people, then equal representation for everyone in radio will
occur through equal distribution of radio's resources (airtime, programs, staff, etc.)
across these different languages.One problem which emerges however, is that if
languagesdo emblematize people, how are 73 different peoples represented by only
seven languages?This section closeswith an illustration of how ZNBC handles such
difficult cases.
In one sense the schedule in Figure 2 presents a picture of distributional
equality, where no particular language seems privileged over others. Each day a
different languageopens the station, no languagedominatesany large time blocks, and
acrossthe weekly cycle, every time slot is shared by two or more languages.A similar
construction of distributional equality occurs in the Radio 1 news schedule,where a
sequenceof back-to-backnewscastsin each of the sevenlanguagesis broadcastthree
times daily, starting at 6.00, 12.20,and 17.20.Within each of these three news periods
the newscastsare identicalin format and content,but the ordering of languagesdiffers
at different times of the day, thus in effect no single languagealwaysgets first place at
news time.
13
Based on Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation Radio One hogramme
Quarter 1990.
Schedule, First
pluralismin Zambia 349
Linguistic
At the sametime, however,there are great disparitiesin the quantity and
qualig of airtime allocatedto each language,and this is summarizedin Table 2.
Table2. Radio time sharingon Radio 1.14
Weekend
hours
l-ate
nights
PEAK
TIMES
daily
TT
WFSu
TuThSa
15
daily
7
TuTh
MWFSu
23
19
daily
8
Sa
Lozi
I7
18
daily
4
M
Luvale
8
9
Tu-Sa
2
Kaonde
7
8
TuThF
0
Lunda
5
8
Tu-Sa
2
%
Zambians
speaking
language
Vo
Radio 1
airtime
Bemba
56%
19Vo
Nyanja
42
Tonga
Days
broadcast
Lunch
slots
'The
big four" have roughly the same amount of airtime, while the three Northwestern
Provincelanguageshave much less,and do not occur every day, except in newscasts.
In termsof measurablehours then there are two tiers - Bemba, Nyanja, Tonga, and
Lozion one level,ranked above Luvale, Kaonde, and Lunda. The high valuation and
demographic
dominance of Bemba and Nyanja over the other five languages are
reflectedmore in the allocation of peak times, and other forms of institutional
favoritism.
The rwo linguafrancas have the most late night slots, numerous weekend
programs,
andthe dailylunchtimeslots,all of which attracthigh advertisingvolumeand
alsocorrespond
with the typical urban laborer's off-work schedule.
The most pervasivetheme in both listeners' and broadcasting personnel's
discourseabout these language valuations is that radio languages represent
homogeneous
and relatively monolingual speech communities, i.e. ethnic groups.
Radio's
elaboratepartitioningof its universeof addresseesat the most general level,
asseparate
but equal speechcommunitiesbasedon language,draws from and feeds
intothisessentialist
view. Thus, while managementstatementssay that "the seven (7)
mainvernacular
languageson the Media representall seventythree (73) tribes found
in Zambia"(Kapeya,1988:3), some people simply do not feel represented;they want
theirpieceof the nationalpie. Many such complaints,as we have alreadyseen,allude
to thenationalmotto "One Zambia, One Nation" in making demands for a linguistic
14
Colurnn1 is basedon Kashoki 1978:39. Other tabulationsare basedon Fisure 2.
350
DebraSpitulnik
democracy.While this motto signifiesa vision of equal inclusion,the closelyrelated
nationalistslogan"One Man, One Vote" hasbecomea major trope for measuringequal
representation,as in this letter to Radio Zambia:
'lf we
are all Zambians, then we should all get the same privileges. Kaonde should be on the
radio for the same amount of time as the other languages.Equal hours for each tribe." (Mytton,
1978: 217,)
Building on the view that one languageis "a true identifier" of one people, a whole
series of one-to-one correspondencesor distributionaltropes have thus emerged as
assessmentsof ethnolinguisticequity: one language,one people, one culture; equal
hours for every language,etc.
In this ongoingdebate over the three Northwesternlanguages,egalitarianismis
also measuredin terms of another kind of one-to-onecorrespondence,
that of regional
distribution. Some broadcastersand listenerssay for example that the Northwestern
Province is unduly favored with three radio languages,while the five remaining
languagesare made to cover the eight other provinces.According to this view, some
provincesare actually shortchangedby having no unique radio languageof their own,
or by having their other languagesgo unrepresented.But Northwesternerssee it
differently.To them the criterion of impartialityis not one languageper province,but
equal hours per language,as this broadcasterexplainedin 1989:
"Theproblemis,wehavebeenrecognized
asa language,
sowhybemistreated?
. . . It remains
thatthebigtwoor thebigfourgetmostof thetime.. . Butyoucan'traisetheseissues
because
youmaybe calleda tribalist."
During 1989,ZNBC's concernover suchgrowing sentimentswas considerable.
Originally Radio t had been divided into five different departments:Bemba Section,
I-ozi Section, Nyanja Section, Tonga Section, and Northwestern Section. This
bureaucraticdivisionin itself clearlymarked the statusof "the big four" as againstthe
others,and ZNBC's responsewas to administrativelyrepartitionthis linguisticuniverse.
The Northwestern Section was split into three distinct languageunits (the Kaonde
Section,the Lunda Section,and the Luvale Section),and each was allocatedthe same
number of employeesas the other four sections.An administrativeanalog of linguistic
egalitarianismwas thus created:one language,one section.Radio time was not changed
however.
Other voicesof contestationcome from Zambianswhosefirst languagesare not
any of the seven national languages(Mytton I974, 1978). While national statistics
suggestthat suchpeople compriseroughly40Voof.the total population,multilingualism
is extremely high and in actuality lessthan 5Voof all Zambians do not understand any
of the sevennational languages(Kashoki, 1978:19-21,38-9).Still, periodic demandsfor
recognition are common, as this letter from a Nkoya listener illustrates:
"L-ozi isn't representative of Nkoya, so we should have our own broadcasts. . . . We won't accept
a situati<ln of being considered as a sub-group of l,ozi!' (received 7/89, ZNBC)
The executive handling this said he would check into the government policy to
determine if Nkoya was "a languageor just a dialect,"and presumablythis would decide
pluralismin Zambia 351
Linguistic
whetherthe Nkoya people could be considered"a sub-group"of the neighboring Lozi
people.In the difficult conflation of 73 into 7, ZNBC thus attempts to dispel the
essentialist
ideathat one languagerepresentsone ethnicgroup. In a similar vein, some
Zambians
invokethis 'language'vs.'dialect' argument in assertingthat there are no
morethan 6 or 7 Zambian'languages'in the country, and that some radio languages
canbe removedwithout sacrificingcomprehension.A corollary emergeshere from the
earliertheme'a languageequalsa people': 'a dialect equalsa sub-group'.While the
formerhavereal status,the latter are insignificant.OneZambian explainedfor example
thatthe Northwesternlanguagesare more like dialectsof Bemba:
"There
arethese
whatarethey,Lunda,Luvale,
andKaonde.No onewill argue
smalllanguages,
Bemba,Nyanja,Tonga,and lozi
thattheycan'tuseBembain the Northwestern
Province.
would be enough."
But as the Nkoya letter above makes clear, for some the issue is not about
comprehensibility
but representation. According to the last national survey, radio
language
comprehensionwas extremely high acrossthe Zambian population, with the
meannumberof radio languageslistenedto overall at 2.9 (Mytton 1974:26). Indeed,
RadioZambiaaudiencesare not as fragmentedas the scheduleswould suggest,due to
the high degreeof multilingualism in the country. Many people listen to Radio 1
throughoutthe whole day, and others tune in selectively to programs in several
differentlanguages.
To some degree then what listenersdo is orthogonal to all of this
concernover radio time sharing.
Comprehensionis not really the point, however, if languagesare viewed as
emblems
of autonomousethnic groups: to be excluded from radio is tantamount to
beinga "sub-group",encompassedby one of the selected seven. To get around this
problemof representation,
ZNBC has pursued other avenuesfor allowing linguistic
diversityto emergein its programming. For example, in the Nkoya case above, the
ZNBCexecutivesaid he would insure that some Nkoya songswere played during the
Lozitime slots.Thus consonantwith the linguistic division of labor discussedearlier,
criesfor representationare met by the inclusion of cultural material. While the time
blocksandnamedradio languagesthemselvescannot be tinkered with, small glimmers
of linguistic
diversitygreaterthan the chosensevencan occur on the airwaves,but they
areof the safecultural kind.
6. Conclusions.
ln conclusion,
I would like to briefly consider how extensive and effective Radio
Zambiais in negotiatingtwo kinds of linguistic pluralism, and then return to the initial
questions
of how to characterize"languageideology." Zambian radio has been faced
withtheimmensely
complextask of reconcilinga national philosophyof egalitarianism
witha fairlyrigid linguistichierarchygroundedin the demographicsof its audiencesand
the long history of differential language valuation in the country. Since the two
pluralisms
are fundamentallyopposed and never fully resolvable, as we have seen,
352
DebraSpiulnik
apparent inconsistencies
in broadcastingpracticecan be seizedupon as focal points for
contestation,especiallyby thosewhoselanguagesare excludedor used only minimally.
Even so, it is to Radio Zambia's credit that it has supported such a high number of
languageswithin the economicand physicalconstraintsof one broadcastingoperation.
The only drawback,it seems,is that in its responseto the dominant interpretationsof
pluralism in national politics - where diversity is seen to verge on divisivenessand acts
of recognizingdifference are potentially "tribalistic" - Zambian broadcasting'sextensive
promotion of English has weakened its ability to adequately provide for all of its
listeners in the seven Zambian languages.In this sense, pluralism is not really
negotiated at all, it is muted.
It is tempting to relate this handling of linguisticpluralism to the wider issues
of national integration and the diffusion of ethnic conflict in the country, but these
processesfar outreach the modes of languagevaluationdiscussedhere, and are more
dependent on factors such as economic stability and political representation.More
narrowly however, Radio Zambia's role and effectiveness in establishing and
reproducing languagevaluesis extensiveand beginsduring the colonial period, as we
have seen. In particular, radio's differential allocation of resources(e.g. channels,
airtime, staff, and program types) among the eight radio languagesis very closelylinked
to the construction of socialinequalitiesamong the speakersof these languages(as well
as others who do not feel "represented"by radio languages),and this deservesmore
detailed study.
The approach here, however, has not been so much to assessthe role of a
powerful institution in producing a net linguistic effect, but rather to trace out how
radio's negotiation of linguisticpluralism is structured (and understood) in terms of
various historical processes,political discourses,and cultural understandings of the
relation between languagesand peoples. If these processesare mutually determining
and complexly entangledover a 51 year history, on which side of the equation does one
locate "languageideology"?One might call the languagevaluationsthat emerge through
the dynamics of broadcasting "languageideologies which are embodied in practice",
while the political discoursesand cultural understandings(as evidencedin verbal data)
might be termed "explicit languageideologies."But basicallythis implicit/explicit dMde
is just a shorthand for the different kinds of data used to distill "ideologies." As we
have seen. both schedules and talk about schedules establish and construct
interconnected languagevaluations.Invariably theseare tied up with relations of power
and interest,in terms of both the national politicsof representationand broadcasters'
perpetuation of their elite distinctions.It has been suggestedhere that to call all of
these valuations, interests,discoursemodes, and cultural understandings"language
ideologies" conflates several social, cultural, and linguistic processesunder one cover
term, and hopefully this case study has sketched out some avenues for investigating
their complexity.
Linguisticpluralism in Zambia
353
I
References
I
Anderson,Benedict (1983) Imagined communities: Reflections on the oigin and spread of nationalism.
london: Verso.
I
Binsbergen,
Wim van (1985)"From tribe to ethnicity in Western Tambia: The unit of study as an
ideological
problem."In W. van Binsbergenand P. Geschiere(eds.),Old modesof productionand
capitalist
encroachment.
[,ondon: KPI, p.18I -233.
Collins,
James
(1988)"Hegemonic
practice:Literacyandstandardlanguagein publiceducation.'Working
papers
andproceedings
of the Centerfor PrychosocialSmdies,no. 21. Chicago:Center for Psychosocial
Srudies.
I
'
Ferguson,
CharlesA. (1959)"Diglossia.n
Word 15:325-40.
Fishman,
JoshuaA (1989)Langtage and ethnicityin minoity sociolinguisticperspective.Philadelphia:
Multilingual
Marrers.
Franklin,Harry (1950)Repon on 'the saucepanspeciat': Thepoor ntan's radio for wal populations.
Lusaka:
Government
Printer.
I
Friedrich,
Paul( 1989)"L-anguage,
9l:. 295-312.
ideology,andpoliticaleconomy."
Ameican anthropologist
Gal,Susan(1989)"l-anguage
and political economy."Annual reviewof anthropologt18:345-67.
Kapyr, Mwansa(1988) "The use of vernacularlanguagesin broadcasting."Paper presentedat a
broadcasting
seminarin Maputo, Mozambique.
Kashoki,
Mubanga
E. (1978)"Thelanguagesituationin Zambia."In S. Ohannessian
and M. E. Kashoki
(eds.),
p.9-46.
Kashoki,
Mubanga
E. and MichaelMann (1978)"A generalsketchof the Bantu languages
of Zambia."
ln S.Ohannessian
andM. E. Kashoki(eds.),p.47-100.
Kaunda,
KennethD. (1967)Humanismin Zanzbiaand a gtide to its implementdtion,
part L Lusaka:
Government
Printer.
l.ehmann,
D. A (1978)"l.anguages
of the Kafue basin:Introductorynotes.nIn S. Ohannessianand M.
E.Kashoki
(eds.),
p.101-20.
'
Mitchell,
J.Clyde( 1956)Thekaleladance.Rhodes-Livingstone
Papers,no,27. Manchester:Manchester
UnivenityPress.
Molteno,
Robert(1974)"Cleavageand conflict in Zambianpolitics: A study in sectionalism."In W.
Tordoff
(ed.),Politicsin Zantbia.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,p.62-106.
I
'
Mytton,Graham (1974) Listening looking and leaming: Report on a national mass media audience survey
inZambia(197A-B). Lusaka: Institute for African Studies.
Mytton,Graham (1978) "language and the media in Zambia." In S. Ohannessian and M. E. Kashoki
(eds.),p.207-27.
354
Debra Spiutnik
Ohannessian,Sirarpi and Mubanga E. Kashoki (eds.) (1978) Langtage in Zambia. [,ondon:
InternationalAfrican Institute.
Roberts,Andrew (1976)A hbtory of Zambia. New York: Africana.
of the
Silverstein,Michael (1987) 'Monoglot 'standard'in America."Workingpapersand proceedings
Centerfor PsychosocialSrudies,no. 13. Chicago:Center for PsychosocialStudies.
Silverstein,Michael (1990)'The skin of our teeth:Registers,poetics,and the First Amendment."Paper
presentedat the American AnthropologicalAssociationannualmeeting,New Orleans.
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1985) "l-anguagevariation and cultural hegemony:Toward an integration of
sociolinguisticand socialtheory."Ameican ethnologist12:738-48.
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1989) "Sentencesin the languageprison: The rhetorical structuring of an
American languagepolicy debate."Ameican ethnologist16:28-78.