Micro-Language Planning: A Case Study of Nigeria (LIN 771)

This essay, titled "Micro-Language Planning," examines the concept of micro-language planning, particularly within the context of Nigeria's diverse linguistic landscape. It defines micro-language planning as the revitalization and modernization of minority languages through bottom-up initiatives involving individuals, communities, and local groups. The paper highlights that micro-language planning contrasts with top-down governmental approaches and emphasizes the importance of grassroots efforts in promoting literacy and the productive use of minority languages. The essay explores the classification of Nigerian languages, distinguishing between dominant, major ethnic, transnational, and minority languages, with a specific focus on the latter. It discusses various misconceptions about micro-language planning, such as the belief that it requires governmental organization, and provides a model for standardization. The paper also explores the factors that necessitate micro-language planning, such as the threat posed by dominant languages, and outlines several levels at which it can be implemented, including sales, manufacturing, local courts, community libraries, and families. The essay concludes by emphasizing the benefits of micro-language planning, such as fostering national integration, promoting cultural heritage, and enhancing the identity and self-esteem of minority language speakers.

Name: Awoyemi Oluwadolapo Richard
Title of Assignment: Micro-Language Planning
Course Code: LIN 771
Course Title: Topics in Sociolinguistics
Abstract
This paper examines the concept of micro-language planning. In the process of this discourse,
micro-language planning was defined as the revitalization and modernization of minority
languages, in which personal groups and communities are addressed on issues of literacy and
productive use of their language. In regards to this definition, it was further revealed that micro-
language planning does now entail a deliberate or governmental planning, as it is a bottom-up
process, where individuals, community councils, households and other groups are required to
serve as agents that work towards reviving and promoting the use of minority languages in their
immediate community. More so, it was emphasized that there are various levels at which micro-
language planning can place effect, such as in the process of sales and manufacturing, local
courts, community libraries, in the family, and many more. Thus, this paper provides a
significant level of insight into the aspect of micro-language planning

1.0 Introduction
Over the years, language planning has taken various positive turns, which have proven to be
more critical and ecological in context, thus providing more substantial emphasis, which has led
to an increasing acceptance that language planning is capable of occurring at various levels
Eggington (2002). According to Ghani, et al. (2002), the reconsideration of language planning
led to the recognition of the role of ‘micro-level in language planning’ in the 1990s, and since
then, there have been various studies on the micro-language planning in various numbers of
contexts. Baldauf and Kaplan (2003) stated that, typically, language planning is conventionally
thought of in terms of large-scale planning and national planning that is mostly implemented by
governments and meant to influence, and partially/wholly affect ways of speaking or literacy
practices within a society, however this is not the case for micro-language planning as it deals
with minority languages .
Therefore, in a country like Nigeria where there are various numbers of minority languages it is
not realistically possible to create a large-scale planning, and promote the use of these minority
languages on a national level, however, this does not necessarily mean that these languages
cannot be promoted in the grassroots and micro-levels, such as in families, the local media,
churches, local courthouse, churches, local libraries, local governments and other local levels.
Thus, it is on this note that this presentation seeks to appraise the concept of micro-language
planning.
2.0 What is Micro-Language Planning
Nigeria possesses about 400 languages which have been categorized in different ways by various
scholars, based on the constraints of sequence, acquisition, and numbers of native speakers, and
roles assigned to these languages (Adegbite, 2003; Igboanusi,2007). The classification in terms
of the particular number of native speakers and specific roles assigned to these languages are
further provided below:
1. Dominant official Language: English (spoken by elites, and used for official and legislative
purposes).
2. Major ethnic languages: Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa (These are regional lingua francas,
however they are not utilized for official purposes).

3. Trans-National Language: French and Arabic (These are proposed semi-official languages)
4. Main ethnic languages: Edo, Anga, Efik, Fulfide, Kanuri, etc. (these are major ethnic
languages used in network news).
5. Minority (Micro) languages: Ebira, Edo, Efik, Fulfulde, Idoma, Igala, Ijo (Izon), Kanuri,
Nupe, and Tiv. (This is the major focus of this paper and they include minor languages
which are usually prone to extinction).
Various scholars have defined micro-language planning from their individual perspective, for
instance, Alexander (1992) perceived micro-language planning to be a bottom-up level of
language planning (from the grassroots) that majorly includes private initiatives such as
individual supplementary, local groups, cultural community, and families. In his own view,
Baldauf (1994) regarded language micro-language planning as the relatively new process of
considering language planning and policy which deals with minority languages in a society.
Eggington (2002) went further to define micro-language planning as the revitalization and
modernization of minority languages, in which personal groups and communities are addressed
on issues of literacy and productive use of their language. Thus, in simple terms micro-language
planning can be said as the planning of minority language in order to retain their value and
prestige.
2.1 Micro-Language Planning: The Case of Nigeria
Oyetade (2003) assert that Nigeria is a widely known country with extreme linguistic
fragmentation, such that there are diverse ethnic groups, and they possess minority status.
However, with regards to the size of ethnic groups in Nigeria, it is convenient to acknowledge
three distinct groups, and they possess the three major/national languages, i.e. Hausa, Yoruba
and Igbo. Following these three major languages are minority language which possess local
importance, which are to some extent useful in their respective communities. Languages in this
category according to Igbonausi (2007), include Ebira, Edo, Efik, Fulfulde, Idoma, Igala, Ijo
(Izon), Kanuri, Nupe, Tiv and many more. In most cases, these minority languages usually
possess less speakers and only useful in their respective communities.
Banjo (1995) reiterates that in the past, the Nigerian government exhibited a number of
sensitivities which reflected on ethnic consciousness and recognition for a number of minority
languages. For instance, Akinnaso (1991) recounted that political party affiliation and voting

patterns were mostly along ethnic lines. Likewise, census figures were conducted in law courts
for what is for what is thought of to be deliberate attempts to under-represent particular groups.
Additionally, there were instances where reactionary groups were created in order to support the
movement of particular ethnic groups. These reactionary groups can be traced to the Afenifere
and Oodu’a People’s Congress (OPC) which were purposely for the Yoruba; the Arewa and
Turaki groups were for the Hausa and Fulani, and the Indigbo was for the Igbo. Likewise, there
is also the Ijaw Youth Movement which was created majorly for the overall survival of the
Ogoni People. Although, these movement were not directed targeted at minority languages, they
facilitated the overall advancement of these ethnic groups, thus indirectly these movement had
major impacts on their languages as well (since language is a significant aspect of any ethnic
group).
However, as regards the contemporary Nigeria society, Omoniyi (2014) assert that there has not
been a comprehensive language policy/planning for Nigeria as a deliberate and planned exercise.
Accordingly, language planning as an ordered and logical pursuit of solutions to language
problems and setbacks has remained largely insignificant to conventional national planning in
Nigeria. At some point, what could be regarded as Nigerian’s language planning came about in
the context of peripheral centrally defined national concerns, which was based on the
development of National Policy on Education and the drafting of a Constitution for the country.
However, even in the consideration of these attempts at language planning and policy in Nigeria,
recognitions have only been accorded to the major/national languages (i.e. Yoruba, Hausa and
Igbo), such that little or no attention have been paid to minority languages. Therefore, the lack of
recognition has left several minority languages at their very own detriments.
3.0 Misconceptions about Micro-Language Planning
Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) observed that one of the major misconceptions about micro-
language planning that scholar posit is that it is required to be a deliberate planning that is
organized by a corporate body or the government itself. However, this is not so, because, rather
than a top-down process, micro-language planning is a bottom-up process which considers a
micro-level approach to language planning. Trudell (2010) buttressed that micro-language
planning is not typically the task of governments and legislative arms, as it is the task of

individuals, community councils, household and other group who are required to serve as agents
that work towards reviving and promoting the use of minority languages in their community.
4.0 Micro-Language Planning Model
Haugen (1997) in his research titled language standardization introduced a model of
standardization of minority languages. This model assert that minority languages are languages
that are not usually employed for functions that national and official languages perform in a
society. Additionally, he constructed his model based on, selection of norms, codification of
forms, elaboration of function and acceptance by the community.
Selection of Norms: This refers to the development of minority languages for broader
communications in a medium or large scale.
Codification of Forms: This is also known as corpus planning, as it refers to development of the
overall form of minority languages, which includes, its linguistic structure such as phonology,
grammar, and lexicography.
Elaboration of Function: This refers to the scale of utilization in speech and writing, such that
the minority languages are given functions its community. An example of this function is the use
of such minority language for ministration (interpretation) in community churches or the use of
such language on radio programs.
Acceptance by the Community: This deals with the minority language as a whole, such that the
inhabitants of a particular community are readily available to accept such language after the
aforementioned processes have taken place.
5.0 Factors that Necessitates Micro-Language Planning
Omoniyi (2014) affirm that it is certainly possible to make case for the threat posed by official
and major languages to minority and micro languages, which has thus created a diglossic
relationship between these languages. Thus, there is a dire need to implement micro-language
planning, so has to revitalize the minority languages and save them from extinction. Hence,
Omoniyi (2014) listed a number of bases for micro-language planning, these bases are further
highlighted below:

1. No language is intrinsically developed: it is through usage that development occurs and
that a language extends its technical scope.
2. A language that performs several functions inevitably acquires prestige and, once
possessed of growing prestige, it gains access to new functions.
3. Creativity has no limits and therefore ‘technicalization’ and terminological development
have no limits.
4. Limited access and restricted roles and functions in the education held adversely affect
the development of minority languages and their transformation
5. Even in the most radical analysis by economists, there is growing recognition of the fact
that economic and technological efficiency cannot be dissociated from the cultural
context.
6. The shortage of stag and material in mother-tongue teaching, learning and promotion is
the result of long-standing discrimination, which can be eliminated.
7. Negative attitudes which downgrade minority languages while at the same time favoring
major languages are based on obvious and superficial rationalizations.
Thus, on these bases it can be established that there is a necessity for micro-language planning
based on the fact there are always facilitating grounds that support the development of these
languages.
6.0 Levels of Micro-Language Planning
As it has been stated in the foregoing that rather than micro-language planning originating from
large bodies such as the government and other esteemed institutions in the society, it originates
from the grassroot and the potentials of communities, social groups and individuals. Thus, a
number of levels at which micro-language planning can be initiated, and implemented are further
highlighted below:
1. Micro-language planning for sales and services;
2. Micro-language planning for manufacturing and product manuals;
3. Micro-language planning for local courts;
4. Micro-language planning for community libraries;
5. Micro-language planning for local government administration;

6. Micro-language planning for local and social media forums (E.g. Landlord meetings,
youth clubs and social media/online groups);
7. Micro-language planning for families.
7.0 Benefits of Micro-Language Planning
According to Omoniyi (2014). recent scholarship on linguistics diversity in terms of micro-
language planning has been more focused on language endangerment and language maintenance,
such that the functionality of minority languages may become endangered by losing their vitality,
and further go through varying degrees of attrition which would then result to language loss or
language, thus it is essential to identify the benefits of micro-language planning. These benefits
are further highlighted below:
1. Fostering of national integration and development (by reducing linguistic diversity in a
country such as Nigeria);
2. Promotion of the cultural heritage of the community where the minority/indigenous
language is being spoken;
3. Reinforcement of the personal identity, self-esteem and self-efficacy of the speakers of
such minority language;
4. Creation of room for enhancement of such minority language in a larger scale;
5. Facilitation of the younger generation’s ability to acknowledge the prestige of their
indigenous language;
6. Facilitation of policy implementation that support the use of such indigenous language
even outside its parent-community;
7. Promotion of the availability of copious and suitable written materials on the grammars,
literature, culture and orthography of such indigenous language;
8. Creation of an avenue for the availability of legislative terminologies in such indigenous
language;
9. Enabling the official recognition and use of such minority language by Government, media
and other formal institutions in the society;

10. Provision of grounds for language maintenance and prevention of language death.
8.0 Challenges of Micro-Language Planning
In terms of the challenges that hinder micro-language planning (in the contemporary Nigerian
society) Igboanusi (2007) reiterates that Emenanjo (1991) and Essien (2003) raised a question
about the sufficiency and adequacy of minority languages in terms of their inability to provide
substantial linguistic capital due to the fact that these minority languages possess little use. By
so doing, this serves as a major challenge in terms of micro-language planning. Accordingly, a
number of other challenges of micro-language planning are further listed below:
1. Reasons due to natural distribution of linguistic resources;
2. Political reasons (as the government is not involved in the planning of micro-language,
they have the power to debar its policy);
3. Lack of status planning goals (inability to choose which minority languages to be used for
what purpose in particular businesses or institutions);
4. Lack of functional and operational micro-language planning body (Since there’s actually
no formal organisation that oversees micro-language planning);
5. The multifaceted nature of minority languages (due to their scattered proportion).
9.0 Conclusion and Recommendation
From the forgoing, it can be acknowledged that, micro-language planning does not require an
official/formal effort or governmental planning before it can be accomplished as it is a bottom-up
process, where individuals and other groups serve as its agents of planning and implementation.
Likewise, it was revealed that micro-language planning occurs at various levels such as, sales
and services, local courts, local government administration and other community levels.
However, in the course of this discourse it was revealed that due to the lack of linguistics capital
attached to minority languages, individuals and corporate organisations are reluctant to invest in
its overall planning and improvements.
Thus, in response to the need for micro-language planning, a number of recommendations are
further proposed:

1. Native speakers of minority languages are required to make effort to keep their indigenous
language alive by employing it in their daily dealings;
2. Language trainers and professional should endeavor to divert linguistic resources towards
minority languages in their vanity in order to make such language prestigious;
3. Families and households are required to encourage the use of these minority languages for
regular conversations at home and amidst their peers in order to retain, as well as promote
the value of such indigenous language;
4. Minority languages should be spoken in formal situations such as in courthouses, local
government offices, local libraries and the mass media, so as to increase its proliferation at
a wider scale;
5. Individuals and other large groups should endeavor to create empowerment schemes for
native speakers of minority languages so as to promote the overall standard of the language
and its community at large.

References
Adegbite, W. (2003). “Enlightenment and Attitudes of the Nigerian Elite on the Roles of
Languages in Nigeria Language, Culture and Curriculum 16:(2):185-86.
Akinnaso, F. N. (1991). Towards the development of a multilingual language policy in Nigeria.
Applied Linguistics 12(1): 29–61.
Alexander, N. (1992). Language planning from below. In R. K. Herbert (Ed.), Language and
Society in Africa (pp. 56-68). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
Baldauf, R. B. (1994). "Unplanned" language policy and planning”, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 14: 82-88.
Baldauf, R. B. & Kaplan, R. B. (2003) Who are the actors? The role of (applied) linguists in
language policy. In P. Ryan and R. Terborg (eds) Language: Issues of Inequality (pp.19–40).
Mexico City: CELE/ Autonomous National University of Mexico.
Banjo, A. (1995).On language and use and modernity in Nigeria. In: K. Owolabi (ed.), Language
in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Ayo Bamgbose, pp. 177–188. Ibadan: Group Publishers.
Eggington, W. G. (2002). Unplanned language planning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of.
Applied Linguistics (pp. 404-415). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Emenanjo, E. N. (1991) Language modernisation from the grassroots: The Nigerian experience.
In N. Cyffer, K. Schubert, Hans-Ingolf Weir and E. K. Wolff (eds) Language standardisation in
Africa 157–163. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

Essien, O. E. (2003) The minority question revisited. In Ozo-mekuri Ndimele (ed.) Four decades
in the study of languages and linguistics in Nigeria: A festschrift for Kay Williamson 27–37.
Aba: National Institute for Nigerian Languages.
Ghani, A., Lockhart, C., & Carnahan, M. (2002). An agenda for state-building in the twenty-first
century. The Fletcher Forum for World Affairs, 30(1), 101-123.
Haugen, E. (1997). Language Standardization. Sociolinguistics. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A.
(eds) Sociolinguistics. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. pp. 341-352
Igboanusi, H. (2007). Linguistic inequalities in Nigeria and minority language education.
Sociolinguistics Studies, 1(3), 513–526.
Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (2007) Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language Planning in Local Contexts: Agents,
Contexts and Interactions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329068322
Omoniyi, T. (2014). Indigenous Language Capital and Development. International Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 225: 7-28
Oyetade, O. S. (2003). Language planning in a multi–ethnic state: the majority/minority
dichotomy in Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies 12(1): 105-117
Trudell, B. (2010). Local agency in the development of minority languages. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(3), 196-210