Bilinguisme et sociétés bilingues [Bilingualism and bilingual societies

Abstract

By stressing both the general characteristics and the complexity of those situations in which bilingualism occurs today, the author sets out a brief typology of bilingual societies which distinguishes the following categories : 1) «Developed» countries with an official language in international use ; 2) «developed» countries with an official language confined to the state within which it is spoken ; and 3) «developing» countries which have recently attained independence and possess languages or dialects which are little used outside the national frontiers and which are sometimes confined to the rôle of a popular vernacular alongside the language bequeathed by the former colonizing nation. Strictly speaking, bilingualism presents no problem in the first two types of society. In the last case, it gives rise to a major problem culminating in the national choice of an official language. The author then goes on within this context to examine the linguistic situation which has evolved in Tunisia. The linguistic situation in Tunisia was marked before independence by the opposition of French, imposed by French rule, and Arabic. The situation was complicated further by the division of the latter language into classical Arabic and its spoken dialectic variety. At the present time the linguistic debate mirrors the stratification of this society which belongs to the third category mentioned above. One current of opinion, represented by the governmental leaders and the State civil servants, is in favour of a combination of French and a form of Arabic spoken by the masses ; the educated elite aims at maintaining the norms of classical Arabic ; and, lastly, the bulk of the population favours the use of spoken Arabic. There results the division between the use of French for written communication and a form of Arabic half-way between the classical and dialectic varieties for everyday speech. In this context of Franco-Arabic bilingualism, French has not declined since independence as a result of the approval it enjoys from the governing body, and this in spite of the desire for a widespread extension of Arabic. In fact, a resolution to uphold bilingualism definitively appears to have been taken. Arabic is now defined as the language of culture and French as a medium of communication. The essential reason behind this choice lies, it would seem, in the fact the people responsible for realizing the propagation of Arab culture are in fact a French-speaking elite. The author concludes with the observation that, ultimately, language is one sign among others of a nation's wealth, and the poor or richer disposition of language can create diverse states of imbalance within both the individual and the nation. If bilingualism is desirable, it is only on condition that the imported language or languages make some contribution to the indigenous language which, in the present instance, would be Arabic.